WOW on Physiology

[Darkmouse]

19 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

I think it is a interesting feature. 

I think it has vastly improved an already great experience. 

[LukeFF]

7 hours ago, J3Hetzer said:

In before "FMs were fine, it was just lack of physiology." Which no one ever said. Ever. ?

 

You've obviously not been paying attention that closely, because proper limits on a pilot's physical ability is something that's been asked for since the days of the original IL2. 

[Floppy_Sock]

Alright - here's accel data in real time.  No tacview gestimation here. Game outputs it for motionchair related stuff. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/44048-motion-support-for-il-2/ if you're curious about how I got the data and want to do it yourself.

 

3 pulls and the pilot is lights out. 

 

Here's a middle aged woman who pulls peak 7.2 and a middle aged man who pulled peak 7.4 with zero prior g-force exposure.  They're both not wearing g suits. Just straining and the pilots are chatting through most of it like nothing's happening. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yeEQGFncXE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BLA6nRQkQ

 

I'm sorry. Can someone please explain how this model is accurate? How should I believe our pilot can't withstand these loads. If you got in a plane and blacked out after 3 pulls in combat - I think it's reasonable to assume you were dead. 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[peregrine7]

15 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

Alright - here's accel data in real time.  No tacview gestimation here. Game outputs it for motionchair related stuff. 

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/44048-motion-support-for-il-2/ if you're curious about how I got the data and want to do it yourself.

 

3 pulls and the pilot is lights out. 

 

Here's a middle aged woman who pulls peak 7.2 and a middle aged man who pulled peak 7.4 with zero prior g-force exposure.  They're both not wearing g suits. Just straining. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yeEQGFncXE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BLA6nRQkQ

 

I'm sorry. Can someone please explain how this "model" reasonable? 

 

I find the model reasonable. But your testing does show that (IMO) the value is slightly too low. While I would expect a grey out at 6G, a full on blackout after 10 seconds of 6G makes the poor German pilots seem a little weak! 

 

[Floppy_Sock]

Sorry - my wording was poor - didn't mean to sound like I was criticizing the model as a whole - just it's accuracy. Changed my wording accordingly. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

1 minute ago, peregrine7 said:

 

I find the model reasonable. But your testing does show that (IMO) the value is slightly too low. While I would expect a grey out at 6G, a full on blackout after 10 seconds of 6G makes the poor German pilots seem a little weak! 

 

You'd hate flying the Yak-1.69 then. Well, more than most Axis preferential players already do...  

[peregrine7]

5 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

You'd hate flying the Yak-1.69 then. Well, more than most Axis preferential players already do...  

 

I used to fly ruskie all the time but haven't done it since the latest patch. To be honest my favourite plane (The La5 Ser8) will be hit the hardest by this, as I used to use its high speed turning capability to defeat Germans all the time. Those turns I used to do will no longer be viable, yikes!

[Darkmouse]

Good work Floppy_Sock. By my conservative estimate, current g tolerance is roughly 12-15% too low for an average healthy young pilot who is used to pulling the g their aircraft can generate. That covers max g, duration and rate of pull etc. 

 

That said, I can easily live with it as the dogfighting is much improved as a result! 

Edited October 11, 2019 by Darkmouse

[Floppy_Sock]

I mean - you can even leave it be if you take into account AOA and seating position (assuming it isn't taken into account already). Those same maneuvers would be probably exerting 25% less Gz on the pilot than is indicated. I was close to stall in all three of those pulls. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

10 minutes ago, peregrine7 said:

 

I used to fly ruskie all the time but haven't done it since the latest patch. To be honest my favourite plane (The La5 Ser8) will be hit the hardest by this, as I used to use its high speed turning capability to defeat Germans all the time. Those turns I used to do will no longer be viable, yikes!

 

Haven't tried it yet either.  I don't think it will be too bad with adjustment of tactics TBH.  Pure aileron rolls which the La-5 excels at seem to have very little G-penalty.  

1v1 unlimited ammo / unlimited waves QMB is a good way to practice.  The AI seems to have already figured out how to keep right at the very edge of blacking out for sustained periods of time.  Now, you have to figure out how the get the ones that go into the "stoopid loop" while dealing with G-forces! 

[bzc3lk]

1 hour ago, Floppy_Sock said:

 They're both not wearing g suits.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yeEQGFncXE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-BLA6nRQkQ

 

 How do you know this?  You wouldn't see it from this vantage point.

 Five to six G's and this guys starting to look like he's on another planet, seven G's and he's off with the fairies.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by bzc3lk

[Floppy_Sock]

@bzc3lk

 

1. Angels pilots don't wear them. 

 

2. https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2018/04/18/blue-angels-tcpalm-media-flight-vero-beach-air-show/526712002/

 

Here he is climbing out of the cockpit - Just see a flight suit. This guy pulled 7.4 too. 

 

And yes - I extrapolated. I specifically looked for evidence otherwise before I posted this - maybe I missed something though. 

 

I see no straining going on in the video you posted. Relaxed no human can withstand 8g.  Pilot were trained to strain during g maneuvers during WW2. See my first post. 

 

And even if they were wearing one. Say we subtract a g off for the suit. it's still 6.4g - more than our virtual pilots can withstand. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[[DBS]Browning]

7 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

@bzc3lk

 

1. Angels pilots don't wear them. 

 

2. https://www.tcpalm.com/story/opinion/2018/04/18/blue-angels-tcpalm-media-flight-vero-beach-air-show/526712002/

 

Here he is climbing out of the cockpit - Just see a flight suit. This guy pulled 7.4 too. 

 

And even if they were wearing one. Say we subtract a g off for the suit. it's still 6.4g - more than our virtual pilots can withstand. 

 

You can knock another g off for the improved pilot training for g forces.

Propper g strain and hick manouvers are post 1950 innovations.

A little more still if the onset is sudden.

[Floppy_Sock]

@[DBS]Browning See the excerpts from the reports I used in my first post here 

 

The modern hick (L-1) with fully closed glottis is post 50's. M-1 is not. 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[bzc3lk]

24 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

@bzc3lk

 This guy pulled 7.4 too. 

 

 

 For how long? A peak reading of how many seconds. A peak stab (as in the example you posted) at 7.4 G's will not make you pass out (see dev's charts) as in the game, but start yanking and banking as in the example I posted will render the same results.

 

https://il2sturmovik.com/news/488/dev-blog-228/

 

The example I showed has the  G meter for you to see and see for yourself the time and G's sustained. Sorry I put the other examples as the usual  journo hype, "I hit 7.4 G's". Yeah but for how long?

Edited October 12, 2019 by bzc3lk

[Floppy_Sock]

I mean you can watch them and count the seconds on the pulls if you're curious?

 

The point wasn't to use those videos as absolute evidence. The point was to show that, humans, in their 40's, have a seemingly higher tolerance than our pilot does. 

 

The actual evidence points to an even bigger disparity - again - please go read the reports on g-tolerance that I posted if you're curious. Seasoned acrobatic pilots can sustain ludicrous g's - 12 g's for 3 seconds before greyout for example. 

[[DBS]Browning]

3 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

please go read the reports on g-tolerance that I posted

 

These links now appear to be dead, although I could open them when first posted.

[Floppy_Sock]

Oh yes - they are dead - strange.  I can post the PDF when I get home shortly. I have them downloaded. 

 

Edit: Seems like the whole dtic site is down. Probably why. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

So...  the pilots of modern jets sit well-forward of the plane's center of lift and center of gravity.  Does the G meter measure from the CoG and CoL or in the cockpit?  Does it change the actual amount of G experienced in the cockpit?  And.. Just for general knowledge, do these questions have and relevance?   

[LLv34_Flanker]

S! 

 

Tested the G-effects on "the other sim" as it has AoA, G forces etc. displayed. Greyout/Black out starts at about 5,8-6,0G and wears off below 4,8G roughly. I flew the Bf109K-4 with full fuel load, no external stores. Began pulling when speed above 500km/h in a shallow dive, but kept the turn horizontal. The heavy breathing began earlier than grey/black out, same as in IL-2.

 

Will try other planes on it later tonight: Pony, Spitfire IX and I-16. Spitfire is really sensitive in pitch so easy to black out. But with testing can get numbers if the threshold is the same on all planes and does the Pony have G suit modelled. 

 

An accelerometer and AoA readout in IL-2 would be great. Would help a lot with testing stuff. If "the other sim" has them I do not see any excuses for IL-2 not to have them as well. 

[ZachariasX]

I‘d love a g meter, maybe in form of a technochat column (indicating g load) on the screens edge (there should be an option to activate or deactivate the function). It is a very clear cue that you have in a real plane together with the strength required for coarse stick movements. Having this cue visualized would teach one to fly in more authentic manner.

[Bremspropeller]

On 10/10/2019 at 8:44 AM, JtD said:

From a more serious perspective, I don't think the A6M will be very hard on the pilot, as it was most manoeuvrable at low speeds, without high g's. A split-s at 300km/h is not as hard as at 500km/h.

 

I've seen historical footage of Ki-43's though, which will be interesting to reenact...

 

I'd say that depends: G available @ speed is just a funcion of Cl and wingloading, so even if you're at lower speeds and if the wing performs well enough, you'll be able to nail 6g turns at much lower airspeeds in the Zero, Oscar and the other nimble japanese kites.

 

###

 

What people need to realize is that geting blacked out is one thing, but keeping on top of things at G or under repeated G is very hard on both your body and your brain.

Your mental abilities will slow down. You can also train for that (being in shape and knowing how to G-strain, which in the 1940s wasn't known), but it remains a hard workout. You can't just put the lift-vector onto somebody, bury the stick in your lap and park at 5g in someone's six until the fuel runs out. It just won't work.

 

@ZachariasX your escapades in the B4 do remind me of my own gliding-days.?

Edited October 12, 2019 by Bremspropeller

[Ribbon]

On 10/8/2019 at 8:42 PM, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Ha, ha, ha.

  Hide contents

 

 

 

 

I have the same feeling. But, it's just a... feeling.

Whatever it is over or under done, the improvement is still huge compare to what we had before. 

I don't see your vision blacking out in that video....you liar???

 

I too think it's way better than before but one thing is missing from calculation when modeling these things; we are sitting in front of the pc and don't have sense of G's on our body so that we can adjust our maneuvers to it and even react on time in some situations which again derives from IRL pilot would do, in short we can't include all our physical senses when flying a sim.

 

Therefore imo best solution is for devs to take RL data on those tests, model it ingame and than reduce it by 20-30%, cos test results in RL copied into sim cant and are not realistic as in RL cos as i said you're missing something in equation and that is G-effect on our physical body.

Same goes with visibility, devs took RL data and model it into game, but IRL our eyes and perception can spot and distingish moving objects easier than few pixels on monitor.

So imo most realistic devs could do is take RL data and reduce/increase it by 20-30% to compesate monitor/sitting in fron of pc limitations (making it a bit easier).

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

your escapades in the B4 do remind me of my own gliding-days.?

 

Very unencumbered days those were. Us juveniles making the most of the least choice. But there is one thing about that pringles can: Even though it made sounds like when crushing a can doing many g‘s, it really felt rock solid and it aired a tremendous self confidence. I couldn‘t think of any flight attitude that was reason for concern, as long as you had both a lot of air underneath you and somewhat reasonable weight and balance. Doing high g spirals etc. and showing off the g-meter (before discreetly resetting it) was part of the debrief amongst us kids. As long as we did nice landings, the old hands always looked the other way. You can‘t pull off such anymore. 

Edited October 12, 2019 by ZachariasX

[Floppy_Sock]

@LLv34_Flanker we do have accel data. You just have to work to get it. I posted a video of it. This is output in real time from the motion device UDP address. 

 

[Panzerlang]

27 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

@LLv34_Flanker we do have accel data. You just have to work to get it. I posted a video of it. This is output in real time from the motion device UDP address. 

 

Wow, that was educational, I had no idea such relative 'slow' movement (outside passing view) translated into such high Gs. (Obviously dependent on forward velocity, but even so).

 

Edited October 12, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[Floppy_Sock]

I should add that I'm sampling the server at 25 hz so 25 server ticks is one second 

[SJ_Butcher]

2 hours ago, Floppy_Sock said:

@LLv34_Flanker we do have accel data. You just have to work to get it. I posted a video of it. This is output in real time from the motion device UDP address. 

 

 

Thank you very much for bringing empirical evidence, now [Edited] should stop complaining for nothing.

Edited October 12, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

I love it too. I think I can fly better now because I am able to see the limitations of pulling the stick too much. I lose less energy now when I ease on the stick as I start noticing the consequences.

[Panzerlang]

I set up an 8 v 8 in QM yesterday, eight P-51s vs four G14s (my flight) and four A8s, all AI on random. I thought I'd killed nothing as every time I achieved a firing solution I was heavily greyed out and saw zero hits. None the less I was credited with two kills (and got a holed wing). It was a seriously intense fight, double-pukka stuff.

[Darkmouse]

15 minutes ago, SJ_Butcher said:

 

Thank you very much for bringing empirical evidence, now the cry babies should stop complaining for nothing.

The 'empirical' evidence shows the pilot experiencing almost complete vision loss after 5 seconds of a smidge less than 6g. The first pull in the video to about 4g showed considerable grey out. 

 

I know what that tells me - what does it tell you? 

 

And for the avoidance of doubt, as I have said many times, I really like what the new physiology model has done to the game. 

[Requiem]

On 10/10/2019 at 5:44 PM, Murleen said:

I knocked up a quick G-meter application using the motion simulator API - to get IL-2 to export the data you need to add this to your startup.cfg:

 

[KEY = motiondevice]
	addr = "127.0.0.1"
	decimation = 2
	enable = true
	port = 4321
[END]

The app separately prints out the "Surge" (forwards/backwards), "Sway" (side to side) and "Heave" (up/down) G-force components. Hopefully this is useful to measure the G-force thresholds.

 

I may have got some of the maths wrong (the API gives acceleration rather than G-force, so you need to add in the gravity component), so it might be worth calibrating the numbers you get.

gmeter.zip 5.09 MB · 3 downloads

Thanks for making this.

 

I followed your instructions and I replayed the recording of my barrel roll video with this app running and it showed a peak of 7.4G coming over the top in each roll (I'll have to try some maneuvering live and see what it says). I don't have a nice looking graph like in @Floppy_Sock's video though.

[AndyJWest]

It would be interesting to see how the data from Murleen's application compares to TacView data. I'd expect them to be much the same, but confirming this would give more confidence in the results for both.

[Floppy_Sock]

Tacview extrapolates all its data from position and heading. 

 

The motion support output is a data stream from the engine itself.

 

I hope they're close but it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't. 

 

Also - @SYN_Requiem I didn't use the app provided by Murleen - I wrote my own - unfortunately it's in matlab so - unless you have matlab license - it's of no use to you.

 

If you send me a replay I can easily make another recording if you want a graph like I have. 

 

 

[KG200_Achilleus]

1 hour ago, Floppy_Sock said:

@LLv34_Flanker we do have accel data. You just have to work to get it. I posted a video of it. This is output in real time from the motion device UDP address. 

 

Please mate if possible to add a video with a barrel roll speeding at 400klm..

Anyway for me also this 5.5-6 Gs blackout in only 4-5 seconds isn't justified yet..

[Requiem]

7 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

Tacview extrapolates all its data from position and heading. 

 

The motion support output is a data stream from the engine itself.

 

I hope they're close but it wouldn't surprise me if they weren't. 

 

Also - @SYN_Requiem I didn't use the app provided by Murleen - I wrote my own - unfortunately it's in matlab so - unless you have matlab license - it's of no use to you.

 

If you send me a replay I can easily make another recording if you want a graph like I have. 

 

 

Thanks very much. I'll PM you later today

[Murleen]

42 minutes ago, SYN_Requiem said:

Thanks for making this.

 

I followed your instructions and I replayed the recording of my barrel roll video with this app running and it showed a peak of 7.4G coming over the top in each roll (I'll have to try some maneuvering live and see what it says). I don't have a nice looking graph like in @Floppy_Sock's video though.

 

I'll try to add csv dumping tonight, which would allow graphing

[Murleen]

Updated version, will dump log data to a file "gmeter.csv"

 

 

gmeter.zip

[KG200_Achilleus]

11 hours ago, Murleen said:

Updated version, will dump log data to a file "gmeter.csv"

 

 

gmeter.zip 5.09 MB · 1 download

Thats great mate thanks!

tried a single loop speeding at 400klm,(not too hard),

and in just 2-3 sec i blacked out at a load of 5.5Gs.. 

Barrel roll speeding also at 400klm,

and didn't go over 5.5Gs-6Gs..

the same at 3 seconds blacked out..

[Nocke]

From developer diary 228:

 

The first thing that all researchers pay attention to is the fact that the amount of G, both positive (when a pilot is “pressed” into his seat) and negative (when a pilot is “pulled away” from his seat and “hangs on the belts”) depends primarily on the duration of the G-load and on the rate the G-load was applied. For example, at a positive +6G the “average” pilot loses consciousness within the first 5-8 seconds, but the same pilot quite successfully sustains +5G for about 40 seconds, if the rate of G-load application was less than 1G/sec. However, if you create the same +5G in just 1-2 seconds, then loss of consciousness will occur in 5-7 seconds. In aviation medicine, this phenomenon is explained by the “hemodynamics” of the cardiovascular system. The body needs some time to mobilize and begin to effectively counteract overload. This is illustrated in the chart from the article written by Anne M. Stoll, “Human tolerance to positive G as determined by the physiological end points” published in The Journal of aviation medicine in 1956:

 

 

 

I think this reflects pretty well what you are experiencing.

The discussion thus is not about the implementation, but about the assumptions it is based on. The challenge to you now is to correct that 1956 article in the Journal of Sviation Medicine.

... and one more point: I think we can't compare physical fitness from people of today and from the 40ties, have a look at atletics records now and then.