Jump to content
sevenless

WOW on Physiology

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, WWDriftwood said:

Pulling on a virtual flight stick is so easy and typically a much less distance to travel from center to back/forward, I think it's greatly underestimated how much of an affect that has on timing and blacking out quickly. So the actual video test you did are missing a lot of info for comparison as well as consistent turn examples. 

 

I read some real pilots respond on the forum and wonder how much they consider the differences in RW aircraft/verses/Virtual aircraft in the flight controls. It's such a subtle difference in timing, speed loss, etc. 

 

Maybe someone on the forum could provide some practical test that can be done for different aircraft demonstrating turn performances in the sim verses real world, and then look at how the g effects are implemented as the flight test is done.

Because the thing that counts here the most, is how fast is making that 6G. In DDs it is very clearly written that the way cardiovascular system modelling works, is that it takes a few seconds to develop high G resistance. And so ingame high G, long turns are possible if the G factor comes on gradually. That is why it`s relatively hard to blackout in 109s, easy to do it in 190/Tempest/Spitfire. Long lasting turnfights are perfrctly possible imo, just not silly evasive/gun solution maneuvers.

Edited by Mac_Messer
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the physiology overall, and in particular the effects of speed and duration of G-force application, is modeled pretty accurately based on personal experience.

 

When I was 19 I went with some buddies to the county fair after work on a Friday, we drank a bunch of beers in the parking lot, then went inside the fairgrounds where I had a couple of greazy corn dogs.  The first ride we went to was the Tilt-A-Whirl, we strapped in, and there were a couple of absolute babes across from us so I was flirting around with one of 'em as the ride started up.  As it spun faster and faster, the constant sideways G-forces slowly became more and more noticeable, I could tell things weren't going the way I wanted with the beer and corn dogs sloshing around in my stomach and that tingly sensation starting in my mouth, and slowly but surely things went more and more sour until I yuu... yuuuuu... yuuuuurked up both corn dogs and most of the beer, which immediately spewed out to the right (we were standing, spinning to the left) as soon as it exited my mouth, splattering all over the pants of this 11-year old kid who was strapped in a couple of spaces away to my right.  He never even noticed it, probably because it was a warm evening.  The ride stopped shortly after that, the kid unhooked his strap and actually said "Oh Boy that was FUN" as he went running toward the exit, my buddies were laughing hysterically and the babe I was flirting with came over as we got off the ride and actually apologized, saying "I'm SO SORRY!" several times like it was all her fault and of course I was too ashamed to ask her phone number or anything of course (loss of consciousness kinda thing?). 

 

So yeah, physiology checks out although maybe some attention to detail lacking in the way of decorative in-cockpit effects, which could feasibly be addressed in the future if needed.  
 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not totally relevant to current IL2, but one interesting thing with blacking out in WWII aircraft is how important it is to have stick free longitudinal stability.

 

The MkV Spitfire had a crisis in RAF use when rear CG loading creep at the squadron level led to instability and probable mid air breakups. Basically if you were going fast enough to pull yourself to blackout at around 4-6g without stalling, you let go of the stick and the plane would tighten further into the turn by itself until the airframe failed at 9-10g or so.  Perhaps you would wake up having been ejected from the disintegrating aircraft and pull the parachute, but probably not. Technically a P51D with full internal fuel load (and hence very rear CG) might do this also which would be an interesting thing to simulate, but I'm not aware of any actual accounts of it happening. Have read a few accounts from shocked new pilots after being sent up in fully fueled up P51Ds without being told to be extremely careful about manouvering until draining the rear tank, which seems amazing from a modern safety perspective.

 

cheers, camber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we get a definitive answer regarding G suits ?

 

Which aircraft have them in the Sim ? P51,P47 and P38?

 

Are the aircraft and pilots equipped with them by Default ?

Share this post


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

Which aircraft have them in the Sim ? P51,P47 and P38?

 

Are the aircraft and pilots equipped with them by Default ?

 

Yes and yes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thankyou...... so the G valve and connector should be in these 3 cockpits then ..... :)

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should have posted this earlier. This was a test I did shortly after the patch. Tried to see all the different effects with the new physiology. Cool thing was the weekend before the patch I spent about 8 hours flying to try and push my turns and ride the edge of a blackout. So when the patch came out and I performed the same moves, I had to make a bit of an adjustment. 

 

But this is constantly entering positive and negative g flight, inverted dives and flight into positive g turns, so it a big pilot workout. You should be able to read the speedometer/altimeter most of the flight. Blacked out a couple times, even long enough for my engines to cut out, the 3rd was the end of my flight. I think all the different effects are shown in the video. Accept once and a while the guy huffs hard, I get a double huff, ooof ooof like a stutter, or that means my pilot is really really tired. 

 

 

Edited by WWDriftwood
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just this question.In the physiology module,  Are the allies wearing Anti G-Uniforms a they do not affect as much the G´s Physiology mean while as the axis that may be are not wearing? .


As we did in the DM models before we must during the next years how affects in every plane the physiology at every pilot comparing one plane to another , if really same G-s has the same affection to all pilots in all different planes as the same .

 

In future Korea escenarios or Vietnam would be great to see the pilot in the cabin cockpit as how the supposed G-Uniforms are working if it could be possible at least as an option, so you could see how the g-uniform inflation in your stomach and your legs mean while you are losing the control and at the same time how works the automatic G limiters of the plane .

7C3213CD-840C-4822-97F6-635B71FF5183.jpeg
USA Pilot 

0421D72C-BDCD-449C-A1CB-150DEA542257.jpeg
Germany Pilot 

0975BA75-2F63-471F-B439-2CAF0260D9A7.png
Anti G-suit model Superman . I hope not .?

21ED85E5-502C-41E3-B18F-4EB038346C0F.jpeg

69EA9D15-551C-410E-8E22-60FF6EC5D4A3.jpeg

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By default the USAAF late war planes (IE P-51, 38 and 47) have the g-suits equipped as by 1944 they were standard issue for the 8th and 9th AF's. 

The luftwaffe did not have the G suits, so they are at a disadvantage. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes they had the ME 262 but  meanwhile they were in disadvantage because they could not develop the G suits a simple inflate  pilot dress . ? 
yes so much sorry I do not know the Americans win with the Anti G Superman Suits : just it may me laugh, Sosorry

& Luftwaffe was not capable to build this Anti G-suits So they were at disadvantage : That’s Anti G-suits came from Kripton ? Also  Wonderwomen & Spider-Man .

That´s all folks.                GAME OVER 

Edited by RAY-EU

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

boy was this thread a roller coaster! 

 

Anyways i'm still a prop plane newb that just came back to this after the physiology update (without knowing it was a thing!) I hopped into a Yak during career, pulled a hard turn to buffet like i had before, then promptly blacked out and slammed into the ground! I had known i had a bad habit of pulling the stick too hard (from my time flying F-16 sims) but i didnt realize it until the physiology update was a thing. Was a pleasant surprise to see that the devs even modeled the rate of G-onset into the game. 

 

And now a fun-fact from the book Fly For Your Life about RAF pilot Robert Stanford Tuck: Tuck at one point remarks about hearing from Doug Badder that he was able to better resist G-forces after he had lost his legs. tuck then has his ground crew raise his rudder pedals up as much as possible and finds it helps him resist the G-forces a bit better too. If you havnt read the book it's a great read. Especially funny when him and his wingman get their spitfires shot to heck and open their canopies so they yell to each-other about who's aircraft looks worse and should therefore land first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

Do we know if the angle of the pilot's seat is taken into about in the G resistance?

It would make little difference even if it were. I believe the 30 degree recline in the F-16 gives about a 0.5g edge up to about 9g (and suspect this has more to do with a higher hip and leg position leading to less blood pooling in the legs), with the trade-off apparently being very high incidences of neck injury. 

 

Were any seats reclined by more than few degrees in ww2 fighters? Even if they were the benefits would be barely discernable at best - there is a reason very few modern fighters except the F-16 (and Rafale?) have reclined seats. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

, with the trade-off apparently being very high incidences of neck injury. 

 

Could you elaborate on this?

Quite an interesting fact

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, RAY-EU said:

Yes they had the ME 262 but  meanwhile they were in disadvantage because they could not develop the G suits a simple inflate  pilot dress . ? 
yes so much sorry I do not know the Americans win with the Anti G Superman Suits : just it may me laugh, Sosorry

& Luftwaffe was not capable to build this Anti G-suits So they were at disadvantage : That’s Anti G-suits came from Kripton ? Also  Wonderwomen & Spider-Man .

That´s all folks.                GAME OVER 

 

 

Actually they came from Canada, not Krypton, but superman was first written for the Toronto Star, the same place the anti-G suit came from.

 

The Luftwaffe never developed an anti-G suit during the war, nor did the USAAF. The first effective suit was developed by Dr Franks of University of Toronto when working at the School of Aviation Medicine for the RCAF. My father was one of the RCAF test pilots assigned to Dr Franks programme.

 

The RAF had the Franks Mk.I for Spitfires from 1941 onwards but we're restricted from using them over the continent until 1944 to keep the technology out of Nazi hands. FAA used them because pilots shot down over the ocean were less likely to be captured and the suit was less likely to fall into enemy hands.

 

The RCAF and USAAF were issued the Franks Mk.II suit and used it in the time period that is covered by our map. Therefore all allied fighters should have an anti-G suit but none of the Luftwaffe or VVS aircraft who didn't develop one until after the Korean War from captured examples.

 

 

Edited by 71st_AH_Rob_XR-R
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Rob_XR-R said:

 

 

Actually they came from Canada, not Krypton, but superman was first written for the Toronto Star, the same place the anti-G suit came from.

 

The Luftwaffe never developed an anti-G suit during the war, nor did the USAAF. The first effective suit was developed by Dr Franks of University of Toronto when working at the School of Aviation Medicine for the RCAF. My father was one of the RCAF test pilots assigned to Dr Franks programme.

 

The RAF had the Franks Mk.I for Spitfires from 1941 onwards but we're restricted from using them over the continent until 1944 to keep the technology out of Nazi hands. FAA used them because pilots shot down over the ocean were less likely to be captured and the suit was less likely to fall into enemy hands.

 

The RCAF and USAAF were issued the Franks Mk.II suit and used it in the time period that is covered by our map. Therefore all allied fighters should have an anti-G suit but none of the Luftwaffe or VVS aircraft who didn't develop one until after the Korean War from captured examples.

 

 


Incorrect on the USAAF point, at least not exclusively.  While the Franks design was the *first* G suit, it was fundamentally different from the USAAF design, so while it's the first in concept, it's not correct to say the USAAF did not also develop their own G suits. 

The USAAF used Brger Brothers G3 and G3A suits, which were of domestic design and manufacture. The USAAF *also* issued the Franks Mk II suits, however the USAAF did not like the water filled nature of the Franks design and developed their own unique design that used compressed air. 

Edited by 357th_Dog
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, R6ckStar said:

Could you elaborate on this?

Quite an interesting fact

Anecdotal, but give it a quick Google - I just did and found various studies and discussions about it, all basically boiling down to significantly higher number of F-16 pilots experiencing neck pain/injury as a result of having to look behind them from a reclined position, Vs the general fighter population that don't have reclined seats. 

 

Looking over your shoulder under high g loads is bad enough for your neck as it is. 

Edited by Darkmouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes seating position most definitely does. Especially when AoA and seat angle are both take into account. This was the point of my original point but everyone glossed over the last section. Since pictures seem to attract attention, I've plotted it here. The non-linearity of the trigonometric functions are what makes such a difference in the curves. 

unknown.png

unknown.png
unknown.png

Edited by Floppy_Sock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Very odd tonight - Yaks and Las going faster than me but turning tighter circles without blackout, then following in a 800km/h+ dive.

 

I think I need to practice.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

Very odd tonight - Yaks and Las going faster than me but turning tighter circles without blackout, then following in a 800km/h+ dive.

 

I think I need to practice.

 

von Tom


Which server? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


Which server? 

 

 

WoL - it's not often I get followed when my FW is buffeting round with the speed.

 

It may well be my lack of skill but it really looked odd.  I know all of the normal stuff - it was one I didn't see, my energy was higher so I blacked out sooner,I'm a noob etc, but it looked odd.

 

von Tom

Share this post


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

 

WoL - it's not often I get followed when my FW is buffeting round with the speed.

 

It may well be my lack of skill but it really looked odd.  I know all of the normal stuff - it was one I didn't see, my energy was higher so I blacked out sooner,I'm a noob etc, but it looked odd.

 

von Tom


I think the pilot physiology model is a server side setting and WOL has it turned off. 

I may be wrong 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:


I think the pilot physiology model is a server side setting and WOL has it turned off. 

I may be wrong 

 

I don't think so - my curiosity was piqued as I was on the edge of blacking out and watching the Yaks and Las turning inside with more energy.

 

Maybe I'm rusty but it looked v odd.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one ever gets shot down in this game.  You only die because of dev bias against whatever aircraft you are flying.

 

Or, and I know this is crazy talk, maybe you misjudged the relative g forces on the aircraft involved.

Edited by BraveSirRobin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

I don't think so - my curiosity was piqued as I was on the edge of blacking out and watching the Yaks and Las turning inside with more energy.

 

Maybe I'm rusty but it looked v odd.

 

von Tom

 

Or you’re misjudging relative energy states ya think?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Or you’re misjudging relative energy states ya think?

 

Maybe though when something dives past me it just might have more energy than me.  When it then out turns me when I'm greyed out then it looks odd.

 

As I said, maybe I'm rusty.

 

von Tom

Share this post


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

Very odd tonight - Yaks and Las going faster than me but turning tighter circles without blackout, then following in a 800km/h+ dive.

 

You answered yourself:

 

8 hours ago, von_Tom said:

I think I need to practice.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

then following in a 800km/h+ dive.

 

I think I need to practice.

 

von Tom

Practice for tighten turns with no blacking out, yes!

But for the diving speeds,i really think that it is not your fault..;)

Those speeds are there for a reason, and the reason is more than obvious that it is all made to equalize the fighting and running away from fight situation..

even an off-topic but it is there..and i will be happy to explain it, if needed..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Practice for tighten turns with no blacking out, yes!

But for the diving speeds,i really think that it is not your fault..;)

 

Agreed, though I still think it is odd to go into the first combat and experience grey out with faster stuff zipping about with what looks like no effect.

 

For the diving speed, I understand this (usually my most skilful bit is running away...) dove until the needle hit the 750+km/h stop then went to a shallower dive to maintain energy, then trimmed out to run at ground level.  Didn't help.

 

von Tom

 

ps  Yes I am feeling sorry for myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

 

 

For the diving speed, I understand this (usually my most skilful bit is running away...) dove until the needle hit the 750+km/h stop then went to a shallower dive to maintain energy, then trimmed out to run at ground level.  Didn't help.

 

von Tom

 

ps  Yes I am feeling sorry for myself.

With the dive speeds we are dealing now, if you want to make a dive run, you have to be at least at 5K-6K altitude.

At this altitude, and cruising-patroling mostly not over 480-530klm/h, you can dive and reach speeds close to 860-880klm/h till you pass 1.5K- 2K alt.

so this means that you have another 1000m and little more height to maintain the speed you got from dive and “theoretically” slip away from fighters trying to catch you..:)

But, if you are bellow 4K-5K, then i am afraid that you will never going to reach this 850-880klm/h limit which will make you fast enough to run away, and even if you hardly reach this limit, probably another enemy will see you 2K bellow him and dive to you with 750klm/h....;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

With the dive speeds we are dealing now....

 

You can reach 850km/h from around 3k, and I reached 750km/h+ by around 800m before shallowing off the dive.  My point isn't just the speed reached, but that at the speed I was at things should be falling off Yaks.

 

I'm derailing this thread though so I'll leave I there.

 

von Tom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, von_Tom said:

and I reached 750km/h+ by around 800m before shallowing off the dive.  My point isn't just the speed reached, but that at the speed I was at things should be falling off Yaks.

 

I'm derailing this thread though so I'll leave I there.

 

von Tom

Yes and still they are on your 6 with only 750klm..

if the wood plane’s speed was as “normally” 630-650 max, they wouldn't followed you from 3K to 1K i guess..

thats the point of the “new” dive speeds..;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, von_Tom said:

 

You can reach 850km/h from around 3k, and I reached 750km/h+ by around 800m before shallowing off the dive.  My point isn't just the speed reached, but that at the speed I was at things should be falling off Yaks.

 

I'm derailing this thread though so I'll leave I there.

 

von Tom

 

Keep in mind this game simulates Indicated Air Speed as your cockpit display, while True Air Speed is what counts for the aircraft breaking up. Just because both aircraft have the same IAS does not mean this TAS is the same 

 

anyways, I had a similar issue when training against the AI in QMB. the issue is that the rate of pull makes a huge difference in the G forces you can take 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Kataphrakt said:

Keep in mind this game simulates Indicated Air Speed as your cockpit display, while True Air Speed is what counts for the aircraft breaking up

Not quite true - aircraft structural limits adhere to indicated airspeed, regardless of what tas is doing. Ie, up high where air is less dense, you may have a far higher tas, but if your vne figure is 300x IAS, your limit is still 300x IAS - you'll just need a higher TAS to shove enough less dense air into your pitot tube to achieve it. Because the air is less dense, your true speed will be higher than at lower altitudes, for any given IAS. 

Share this post


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

Not quite true - aircraft structural limits adhere to indicated airspeed, regardless of what tas is doing. Ie, up high where air is less dense, you may have a far higher tas, but if your vne figure is 300x IAS, your limit is still 300x IAS - you'll just need a higher TAS to shove enough less dense air into your pitot tube to achieve it. Because the air is less dense, your true speed will be higher than at lower altitudes, for any given IAS. 

 

Not quite that simple. There are really three limits to safe airspeed for most aircraft. The 'IAS' related one is directly related to potential structural loads, as you suggest. There are also (for subsonic aircraft) Mach-related ones (i.e. uncontrollable pitch down and other symptoms of transonic shock waves forming) which WW2 fighters were beginning to encounter during dives. And there is also the potential to encounter flutter at high speeds (which correlates with TAS not IAS). A properly designed aircraft shouldn't encounter flutter during flight, provided you don't exceed critical Mach, but that is because the Mach limit will take potential flutter into account if it is likely to be encountered before the shock-wave effects.

 

For a discussion on flutter relating to TAS, not IAS, see here:

https://www.vansaircraft.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/hp_limts.pdf

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All true - I was giving the simple version! I doubt flutter and transonic symptoms are modelled - happy to be corrected though. 

Edited by Darkmouse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 8:22 PM, Darkmouse said:

All true - I was giving the simple version! I doubt flutter and transonic symptoms are modelled - happy to be corrected though. 

oh but they are, at least for transonic symptoms

Edited by R6ckStar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...