WOW on Physiology

[KG200_Achilleus]

37 minutes ago, Nocke said:

From developer diary 228:

 

 However, if you create the same +5G in just 1-2 seconds, then loss of consciousness will occur in 5-7 seconds..

In the game, a similar G rate of 3-5Gs/sec and you are blacked at only 2-3 sec..

A simple loop of 5-6G total and blacked at only 2-3sec?

No way that this is a fact, and no pilot could ever withstand only 2-3sec at 5-6 Gs before blacked..

Edited October 13, 2019 by KG200_Achilleus

[Darkmouse]

2 hours ago, Nocke said:

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.

You have hit the nail squarely on the head - the implementation seems to be an accurate reflection of the data used - but I wonder about how it was collected. The g tolerance of an average human is not comparable to that of someone accustomed to pulling g. 

 

I also slightly disagree with your final statement - at the top level ie athletic records, that is undisputably correct for all manner of reasons. I suspect that on average though, young men in the 1940's were fitter than the average now. 

[Nocke]

As to your question about how the data was obtained: The paper can be found here: 

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Human-tolerance-to-positive-G-as-determined-by-the-Stoll/84535b586c86f7552385d1a8e25cb5d0ce277f0c

 

Concerning the fitness of young men now and then, I think we are not talking about the average couch potatoe, there you might be right. I would assume that fighter pilots have always been relatively fit guys, and I would guess those are fitter today. Admittedly just a guess. Will see if I can find some data about that.

Here https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/history.html

I found this:

World War II
Throughout world history, military conflicts have had major impacts on the state of fitness. The Second World War and its aftermath in the United States would be no different. Essentially, the modern fitness movement evolved out of the influence of World War II and subsequent development of the Cold War.
The United States entered World War II with the bombing of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. With the declaration of war came the necessity to draft military personnel. However, as more men were drafted, it became embarrassingly clear that many of them were not fit for combat. When the war was over, it was reported that nearly half of all draftees needed to be rejected or were given non-combat positions (20). These disturbing statistics helped gain the attention of the country with regards to the importance of fitness.

 

 

p.s.: I have no business in this and do not care about at how many g exactly I black out in game.

I just consider it a matter of respect towards the devs to assume they did their homework. As far as it seems to me they did. If you do not agree you'll need to present something better founded than that study.

[Darkmouse]

I'm fine with it as it is, and I don't think it needs to change - but it is not correct. I am too lazy to do any research, I am merely reporting my observation as someone who has pulled a fair amount of g, and watches others do it on a regular basis. 

[Requiem]

FWIW here is the graph from my barrel roll video in the Bf109 (no blackout). Will be able to do some actual flying later today for some more data.

 

 

 

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by SYN_Requiem

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Wow and i thought i was bad..

WW2 pilots rarely had G training specially early on if any real pilot training. 
(5 hours in a trainer plane then off to combat in some cases :D ) 

Not to mention some of them were starving or physically weak from exhaustion
and lack of good food so even climbing into cockpit was tiresome enough. 

Passing out early or at shorter periods of sustained G's then a healthy big fit
Airforce officer who can run 10 miles up a mountain is to be expected in a WW2 sim. 
 

Edited October 13, 2019 by =TBAS=Sschatten14

[Darkmouse]

29 minutes ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

5 hours in a trainer plane then off to combat in some cases

Absolutely not - I can assure you that anyone with 5 hours training, upon jumping into a fighter would barely last the first 100 yards of the takeoff roll before killing themselves. And that's if they started lined up on the runway - they wouldn't even be able to taxi. 

 

For the vast majority, elementary flying training would consist of about 60 hours on a trainer like the tigermoth or stearman, followed by about 120 hrs on a Texan/Harvard/Wirraway etc. Other than at the height of the battle of Britain when a pilot may then have been sent straight to a squadron and only been given a handful of hours to familiarise themselves with their frontline type before combat, pilots then attended an operational training unit (OTU), where they converted into their frontline type. 

 

I was lucky enough to host a number of RAF ww2 fighter pilots a few years ago and spoke to them at some length about flying training, and most reckoned they had about 250 hours when they became operational on a front line squadron. 

 

Fatigue and having an empty stomach definitely contribute to lower g tolerance though, as does being hungover. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by Darkmouse

[KG200_Achilleus]

 Are those G's in the right center side of the window realistic?

[SCG_motoadve]

I hope developers dont change the physiology.

 

Dont want to fly again in MP against UFO maneuvers.

 

The way MP feels right now is pretty realistic, why people want to change it?

Also to compare a WWII fighter with an aerobatic pilot is not a fair comparison.

An aerobatic pilot trains for it,  is rested , is not scared and being shot at, goes up do their routine and lands, no long missions,  lighter and  control surfaces, slower speeds, lighter airplanes, all that allows the aerobatic pilot to pull higher Gs.

 

If some people want UFO maneuvers again and thinks that is how it used to be, then turn Physiology OFF , go fly in a server with that option OFF. Or play SP with option OFF.

Lots of people posted they are liking it a lot, its very popular ,as always a few want to debate and start showing evidences and all, trying to convince developers they are right.

 

Edited October 13, 2019 by II./JG77_motoadve

[DEDMANcjp]

6 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

I hope developers dont change the physiology.

 

Dont want to fly again in MP against UFO maneuvers.

 

The way MP feels right now is pretty realistic, why people want to change it?

Also to compare a WWII fighter with an aerobatic pilot is not a fair comparison.

An aerobatic pilot trains for it,  is rested , is not scared and being shot at, goes up do their routine and lands, no long missions,  lighter and  control surfaces, slower speeds, lighter airplanes, all that allows the aerobatic pilot to pull higher Gs.

 

Agree ++

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 I do not want UFO movements back either. Just need to test the G-limits on planes to see if they differ. Pony should have roughly 2G more tolerance over the rest of the planes in general due the G pants. The difference between IL-2 and "the other sim" is not big either. IL-2 is maybe a bit more abrupt and harsh. Now with the accelerometers should be easy to test IL-2 more thoroughly.

[DEDMANcjp]

that fair -Flanker

[=gRiJ=Roman-]

I LOVE the new physiology. It would nice to have an optional G Meter Bar in-game to learn about the limits and to try out maneuvers.  

[CUJO_1970]

I wouldn't change much. Sure, it's (maybe?) not perfect but it's pretty damned good.

 

It's been a revelation and a game changer. There is no going back from this, I could never go back.

One thing I have noticed regarding AI following G-LOC - when they wake up they have instant awareness of your location it seems.

 

I think it should take a moment at least for them to regain their bearings.

[KG200_Achilleus]

1 hour ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

 Are those G's in the right center side of the window realistic?

In this video the blackout looks to come really fast to only 3-4 sec at 4-6 Gs, for sure in real life no pilot would ever blacked out in just 3-4 seconds at 4-6Gs.

I mean, i couldn't imagine a smoothest way that this plane could do those maneuvers, a smooth loop, and an inside loop,a smooth roll with only 430klm/h,

almost like Cessna could do it same way..;)

But, i have to admit that this game is getting really really interesting and challenging now..

Its very easy now for an experienced Vpilot to easy trap even a hard Veteran one to the black hole,and all are over faster and easier than it was ever before..;)

[Legioneod]

1 hour ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

I hope developers dont change the physiology.

 

Dont want to fly again in MP against UFO maneuvers.

 

The way MP feels right now is pretty realistic, why people want to change it?

Also to compare a WWII fighter with an aerobatic pilot is not a fair comparison.

An aerobatic pilot trains for it,  is rested , is not scared and being shot at, goes up do their routine and lands, no long missions,  lighter and  control surfaces, slower speeds, lighter airplanes, all that allows the aerobatic pilot to pull higher Gs.

 

If some people want UFO maneuvers again and thinks that is how it used to be, then turn Physiology OFF , go fly in a server with that option OFF. Or play SP with option OFF.

Lots of people posted they are liking it a lot, its very popular ,as always a few want to debate and start showing evidences and all, trying to convince developers they are right.

 

Personally I think the physiology is nearly spot on for a WW2 scenario. Most complaints I hear are from certain pilots who can't do UFO maneuvers anymore or think that the Americans have an unfair advantage due to G suits.

 

The Devs need to leave the Physiology as is and let all the commotion die down first then they can tweak it as needed.

49 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

In this video the blackout looks to come really fast to only 3-4 sec at 4-6 Gs, for sure in real life no pilot would ever blacked out in just 3-4 seconds at 4-6Gs.

I mean, i couldn't imagine a smoothest way that this plane could do those maneuvers, a smooth loop, and an inside loop,a smooth roll with only 430klm/h,

almost like Cessna could do it same way..;)

But, i have to admit that this game is getting really really interesting and challenging now..

Its very easy now for an experienced Vpilot to easy trap even a hard Veteran one to the black hole,and all are over faster and easier than it was ever before..;)

You didn't black out at 430kmh, you started blacking out at 520+ kmh, theres a pretty large difference in those speeds and I'm sure theres a difference in the amount of Gs being pulled at those speeds as well. Just an assumption but I think you're pulling more G than you think.

[GP*]

In our sims at work, pilots constantly over-G. These as experienced pilots with anywhere from 100 to 1000+ hours in the platform. 
 

Why? Because there’s no “feel” in a sim. No seat of the pants sensation. 
 

Folks are pulling a lot more G than they think and are surprised now that they’re actually paying for it. 
 

Even if the current model has its flaws (maybe it does, I haven’t gone through every scenario yet) it’s far closer to reality than in the past. 

[keeno]

I think the new feature is great and seems to be modelled perfectly (although I've never felt G-LOC), the complainers are the people who've been flying in a manner which a human could not sustain.

[KG200_Achilleus]

38 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

 

You didn't black out at 430kmh, you started blacking out at 520+ kmh, theres a pretty large difference in those speeds and I'm sure theres a difference in the amount of Gs being pulled at those speeds as well. Just an assumption but I think you're pulling more G than you think.

The barrel roll is at 430klm/h,and the blackout comes at only 2 sec of 5.5Gs..

Its more obvious than it looks like.

Anyway, as i said before, i like it that way my self also.

Before this, an ufo vs ufo was like mosquito fighting near a lamp,

but now, only the experience and pure ability will survive.

so i vote to be like it is now, even if it is not as realistic as it should be..

 

p.s. i believe that the issue in this topic was that most people thought that this was a war between “leave the game as it is or not”..

as the real issue was just a conversation about if this is realistic or not..

Edited October 13, 2019 by KG200_Achilleus

[Legioneod]

15 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

The barrel roll is at 430klm/h,and the blackout comes at only 2 sec of 5.5Gs..

Its more obvious than it looks like.

Anyway, as i said before, i like it that way my self also.

Before this, an ufo vs ufo was like mosquito fighting near a lamp,

but now, only the experience and pure ability will survive.

so i vote to be like it is now, even if it is not as realistic as it should be..

 

p.s. i believe that the issue in this topic was that most people thought that this was a war between “leave the game as it is or not”..

as the real issue was just a conversation about if this is realistic or not..

You did loops for the most part of the video, you tried a barrel roll at the end but it wasn't a proper barrel roll so that could be the cause of your problems.

Personally I do believe it's pretty close to reality as far as WW2 is concerned, modern pilots have far more training and advantages when it comes to resisting G forces.

[MaxTurn]

If you want to learn more about G and jerk.  Jerk is not explained very well.  But it is the killer.  That was a big problem with early ejection seats using spring, explosives, and compressed air.  To get to an acceptable G (enough to clear the aircraft) involved unacceptable jerk.  Anyway some references for those you are interested in learning.

Nice demonstration of a centrifuge: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMKcO-T5Y4o

Note that Jerk is mentioned as being the killer. 

 http://code7700.com/aero_turn_performance.htm

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/acceleration.pdf

https://www.intechopen.com/books/aircraft-technology/physiologic-challenges-to-pilots-of-modern-high-performance-aircraft

[Blackhawk_FR]

3 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

for sure in real life no pilot would ever blacked out in just 3-4 seconds at 4-6Gs.

 

For sure in real life a pilot can have a black out in just 3-4 seconds at 4-6G.

The most physically trained will have a grey out. 
Questions?

Edited October 13, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[KG200_Achilleus]

On 10/9/2019 at 2:05 PM, 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 

Hmm...i thought you said it couldn't..:)

[Darkmouse]

47 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

The most physically trained will have a grey out. 

That's why I avoid the gym!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

6 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

 Are those G's in the right center side of the window realistic?

 

Where can I find this G meter you are using?   I'd like to mess around with it for my own QMB experiments.  :)

[KG200_Achilleus]

12 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Where can I find this G meter you are using?   I'd like to mess around with it for my own QMB experiments. 

 

Look at Murleen’s post at page 9..;)

When you edit the startup file,

fix the resolution(both full width,and win width) just a little lower than your desktop resolution, so you will get a little gap for the g meter..

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[kalbuth]

On 10/12/2019 at 1:47 AM, Darkmouse said:

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! 

 

 

Thank you @everyone that contributed to getting accurate numbers out of this.

I'm gonna follow the above statement, that imho seems to follow judgement of another pilot that the physiology is slightly too much (which seems in line with this 12-15% figure).

I'm personnaly pretty happy with something 15% within what's feeling right. Upping it would give people smtg around +1G... Not sure it's worth the hassle, depending on how it is coded, tweaking numbers to end up on the correct values maybe more difficult than we think of it. I doubt there is a file saying "give them black out at 6G"....

 

Edit : I completely mixed up things between time to GLOC and permitted Gs. Corrected.

Edited October 14, 2019 by kalbuth

[Lusekofte]

I am all for a more realistic behavior on servers.
people say they are seeing it happen. 
I am good. 
But if there is a justified complaint about the g force limit, some form of evidence are needed for devs to see. Nothing going to change before someone do. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

@KG200_Achilleus   Just for an experiment with the G meter:  Pull the plane straight up and release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds. What does the G meter say?  If you still have speed to complete the loop, do so.  On the way down, when the plane is pointed straight down (and if you have the altitude) release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds and check the meter.  What does it say?   

 

I'm pretty sure that if no pitch rate is being applied, it should say 1 G or even 0 G.  If not it may not be calibrated correctly.  

[Pict]

Overall after using it plenty in the last week I have to say I'm not just happy with it, I'm very happy with it and think they've done a great job of implementing it. Sure there's always room for improvement, but for it's debut it's better than many will ever admit.

 

It's also a massive leap forward for realism that many "gamer's" won't like, but they can turn it off and it can be turned of at server level so they have little to complain about in my view. I only wish that was the case with the technochat too.

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Pict
Spelling, tweaking etc.

[KG200_Achilleus]

1 minute ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

@KG200_Achilleus   Just for an experiment with the G meter:  Pull the plane straight up and release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds. What does the G meter say?  If you still have speed to complete the loop, do so.  On the way down, when the plane is pointed straight down (and if you have the altitude) release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds and check the meter.  What does it say?   

 

I'm pretty sure that if no pitch rate is being applied, it should say 1 G or even 0 G.  If not it may not be calibrated correctly.  

Haven't you be able to setup the gmeter by your self?

need any help?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

This past day has been busy. It's 6am here and I just got home 20 minutes ago. Got some food in the toaster oven.  Just checking the forum, waiting to eat, then going to bed. lol 

4 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Haven't you be able to setup the gmeter by your self?

need any help?

 

[KG200_Achilleus]

3 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

This past day has been busy. It's 6am here and I just got home 20 minutes ago. Got some food in the toaster oven.  Just checking the forum, waiting to eat, then going to bed. lol 

 

Ok then,

just rest a bit and try it later, those Gs are really tough..;)

[Murleen]

57 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

@KG200_Achilleus   Just for an experiment with the G meter:  Pull the plane straight up and release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds. What does the G meter say?  If you still have speed to complete the loop, do so.  On the way down, when the plane is pointed straight down (and if you have the altitude) release the elevator control to neutral for a few seconds and check the meter.  What does it say?   

 

I'm pretty sure that if no pitch rate is being applied, it should say 1 G or even 0 G.  If not it may not be calibrated correctly.  

 

In straight and level flight, you should see 1G Heave, representing gravity. You should see 0G if diving with an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. The G-meter uses the acceleration data from the game, but needs to apply the gravity term on top, which requires using the rotation data to determine which way "down" is in the local reference frame of the plane. It's possible there are some errors here - it's easy to flip signs in the maths terms etc. I've done some rough testing (e.g. checking that a 60 degree bank is 2G), but I'm not enough of an expert on the physics or the manoeuvres to check exhaustively. If you find a case where it looks to be reporting the wrong data, let me know and I can take a look. 

[Pict]

1 hour ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Got some food in the toaster oven

 

Just the idea of a mobile BBQ using a toaster oven made me smile

 

[Cpt_Siddy]

19 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

 Are those G's in the right center side of the window realistic?

 

Yes.

[KG200_Achilleus]

1 hour ago, Murleen said:

 

In straight and level flight, you should see 1G Heave, representing gravity. You should see 0G if diving with an acceleration of 9.81m/s^2. The G-meter uses the acceleration data from the game, but needs to apply the gravity term on top, which requires using the rotation data to determine which way "down" is in the local reference frame of the plane. It's possible there are some errors here - it's easy to flip signs in the maths terms etc. I've done some rough testing (e.g. checking that a 60 degree bank is 2G), but I'm not enough of an expert on the physics or the manoeuvres to check exhaustively. If you find a case where it looks to be reporting the wrong data, let me know and I can take a look. 

So are those gmeter stats in my video right?

maybe a +-1 G loss?

 

 

[RavN_Sone]

Qutes taken from this topic.

 

Quote

This is my main concern, we are probably going to end up with another situation like the spotting debacle. Pilot physiology is introduced, suddenly our online pilots are not getting the amount of kills that they used to, they also can't pull off highly unrealistic manoeuvres any more without an adverse effect taking place.

 

@6./ZG26_Custard

Why do you have to generalize? Why does every person with a different opinion have to automatically be that kid living for his kill feed over the internet?

I am no ace. I'm just your average virtual pilot, who wants a realistic, immersive game. No crazy maneuvers, no 700kph dives and climbs with excessive Gs. And yet, I do agree with what Sheriff wrote in that other topic, that was my feeling from the start as well. Pilots' resilience at medium G loads seems a bit low.

It may need some tuning. That's it. 

Please don't respond with that take it or leave it "you can turn it off" attitude, because probably nobody here wants the feature disabled. At least let others discuss.

[ZachariasX]

15 minutes ago, RavN_Sone said:

Pilots' resilience at medium G loads seems a bit low.

How much would you want?

[6./ZG26_Custard]

49 minutes ago, RavN_Sone said:

Please don't respond with that take it or leave it "you can turn it off" attitude, because probably nobody here wants the feature disabled. At least let others discuss.

I can respond how I like, just like you can. I really don't see why you had to drag my comment out of a locked thread to be honest, as I'm not "spoiling the party" in this one. I have seen the "feelings" effect so many times in flight sims when something new is introduced.

We can appreciate that there are many studies and video's showing modern day pilots taking excessive G  but I have also seen them panic pulling 2 G (In the video I posted) and others G-LOC at 5.

I had a good read of what the Lead Engineer (Andrey “Petrovich” Solomykin) said about Pilot Physiology and it makes for an interesting read. I'm sure you have read it. It seems that the research into programming it has been fairly in-depth.

 

For those that haven't read it here is a link

 

Edit: I also forgot to add that studies have shown some individuals can resist the effects of high G better than others and this is true even for super-fit modern day pilots. 

Edited October 14, 2019 by 6./ZG26_Custard