Jump to content
sevenless

WOW on Physiology

Recommended Posts

On 10/27/2019 at 9:22 PM, Darkmouse said:

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

I thought this was why the control surfaces come off so easily in the game. But we never see them flutter, that is true. I wish we would see it if that was the reason. Can‘t imagine another one though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2019 at 12:19 PM, ZachariasX said:

I thought this was why the control surfaces come off so easily in the game. But we never see them flutter, that is true. I wish we would see it if that was the reason. Can‘t imagine another one though. 

 

I wonder if the developers may have chosen to model flutter that way (losing control surfaces) because doing it accurately could lead to all sorts of complaints. As the article I linked earlier points out, the onset of flutter can be sudden, and result in almost immediate catastrophic destruction of the aircraft. Having a diving plane simply explode into pieces without obvious warning and with no time to react might be too realistic for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 3:09 PM, AndyJWest said:

 

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

 

While true it's not true for all aircraft. The P-47 for instance has a dive "limit" of 500 mph IAS in American manuals and 520 mph IAS in British manuals (or some of them anyways), this limit was set due to compressability and not due to structural limits of the airframe. Once dive recovery flaps were added the allowable dive limit was higher (upwards of 540-560 mph iirc), so in the P-47s case the IAS limit was due to mach related issues and not structural ones.

 

It would be nice to have all facets of high speed flight modeled, that way we can get rid of the gamey structural mechanic. (flutter, reversals, etc.)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Legioneod said:

The P-47 for instance has a dive "limit" of 500 mph IAS in American manuals and 520 mph IAS in British manuals (or some of them anyways)...

 

500 mph IAS at sea level. See the chart in the IL-2 GB P-47 cockpit:

 

P-47-IL-2-GB-dive-speed-table.png

 

See also this P-47D manual:

P-47-dive-chart.png

 

This is for 'dives during training', and is probably more conservative than operational recommendations. The manual doesn't seem to  mention dive recovery brakes, and is presumably referring to earlier P-47D versions.

 

You may well be right, and the limiting factor for the P-47 may always be compressibility/control rather than structural or flutter, but I didn't suggest otherwise. I was responding to Darkmouse's suggestion that only IAS matters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In a picture, here's what the new pilot physiology has meant for me.  I find it much easier to fly smoothly and consistently through many maneuvers since it has heightened my awareness of what the aircraft is doing.

 

Case in point: those of you who practice aerobatics know that most loops come out sadly egg-shaped when not flown well, and getting that "perfect circle" takes just the right technique.  While this one isn't perfect (I squared off the bottom exit corner too much and exited in a shallow dive... tsk tsk!) it does tell a tale of the feedback I was getting from the sim:

 

PerfectCircle.jpg

Edited by =[TIA]=Stoopy
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

Is the physiology reduced by 20-30% or it is my idea?:)

 

that's your imagination, the only G-force related change listed is: "60. AI pilots try not to exceed 5G (6G if they have anti-G suits) to prevent the loss of consciousness;"  unless you want to imply the devs are making stealth changes and purposefully keeping us in the dark...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems to me that G effects also vary slightly from plane to plane.  It think that's cool because it is very much like RL.  Some RL planes were known to be very forgiving, while others were known to have rather unpredictable blackout envelopes even during seemingly safe maneuvers.  Compare a 190 A-3 to an A-5 or A-8 in mid to high-G and it might be a bit more apparent what I mean.   

Edited by Mobile_BBQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

I bet my callsign that it is not my imagination..:))

 

It is your imagination. Nothing with the physiology model has changed.

Share this post


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

4.01b version and back to normal..

don't bother..

And your proof? 

Share this post


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

My experience, and my accelerometer..

Then i'll suggest that the devs made it so that blackout occurs now at 3 Gs. 

 

 "There is a teapot in orbit of the sun, prove me wrong"

Edited by Kataphrakt
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Is the physiology reduced by 20-30% or it is my idea?:)

I agree with you. I have been flying for a couple of hours with my usual plane la5fn and there are less blackouts now. Not your imagination.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sakivano said:

I agree with you. I have been flying for a couple of hours with my usual plane la5fn and there are less blackouts now. Not your imagination.

 

Your imagination from both of you :salute:

Share this post


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

 

Your imagination from both of you :salute:

Not at all,

the time the patch released, many tests were made with accelerometer showing 5.5 - 6 Gs at least for 3sec and still no blacking out,not just one test, but many!

The same tests that took place days ago,with the same accelerometer.

After the second fix(4.001b), the blackouts return to “normal”, only 4 Gs and blacked at only 2-3 sec..

and this is not an inquiry, it is a fact!

jumping and jumping how much you want but that doesn't change..

lol

Edited by KG200_Achilleus
  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

the time the patch released, many tests were made with accelerometer showing 5.5 - 6 Gs at least for 3sec and still no blacking out,not just one test, but many!

 

Well that's how it was before the big update no?

 

 

39 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

After the second fix(4.001b), the blackouts return to “normal”, only 4 Gs and blacked at only 2-3 sec..

 

I'm looking foward your test that will show the pilot black out with only 4G :popcorm::popcorm:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

Well that's how it was before the big update no?

I'm looking foward your test that will show the pilot black out with only 4G :popcorm::popcorm:

 

I think there are some that should take a ride in your backseat for then showing them how easily you can put them to sleep. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

I think there are some that should take a ride in your backseat for then showing them how easily you can put them to sleep. 

 

While Spotting a military painted fighter size aircraft at 5-10 km distances 😀

 

Sorry for off topic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

While Spotting a military painted fighter size aircraft at 5-10 km distances 😀

 

Sorry for off topic

 

Cheers, Dakpilot 

leaked video of the event have already surfaced...

 

1397761346555.gif.5e757b3b52b28a87ffd655e54a22e1ef.gif

  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

 

Well that's how it was before the big update no?

 

I believe that before the previous big update, you could handle even 7-8Gs for at least 3-5 sec.,

its a huge deference here.. 

2 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

 

I'm looking foward your test that will show the pilot black out with only 4G :popcorm::popcorm:

I have already post a video(my last) showing just this,well almost like this(4-5Gs at only 2-3 sec still unexeptable)

and this was a smooth enough left-right turn, if you try the same turn little harder you will blackout at just only 4..

:drinks:

Edited by KG200_Achilleus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ZachariasX said:

 

I think there are some that should take a ride in your backseat for then showing them how easily you can put them to sleep. 

Maybe i should tell this to a neighbor and friend of mine, who is an ex greek air force pilot and still he has the same opiniom with me as he watch the video and tries out the game..

he may want to give it a try..

;)

Edited by KG200_Achilleus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

New physiology for sure did SP way more enjoyable and a bit more challenging, now i actually check my six from time to time :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

Not at all,

the time the patch released, many tests were made with accelerometer showing 5.5 - 6 Gs at least for 3sec and still no blacking out,not just one test, but many!

The same tests that took place days ago,with the same accelerometer.

After the second fix(4.001b), the blackouts return to “normal”, only 4 Gs and blacked at only 2-3 sec..

and this is not an inquiry, it is a fact!

jumping and jumping how much you want but that doesn't change..

lol

Then prove it. If you want any shred of credibility to your claims the burden of proof is on you. Without proof your claims are less valid than claims of false moon landings and a flat Earth. 

 

I can claim that my pilot is able to pull 300gs without blacking out, and that I have tested it many thousands of times. This statement is just as credible as your statements since neither of us has proof. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Kataphrakt said:

 

I can claim that my pilot is able to pull 300gs without blacking out, and that I have tested it many thousands of times. This statement is just as credible as your statements since neither of us has proof. 

No it is not,

i have proof that you could never reach such a high Gs, even 6-7 Gs without blacking out, and the proof is the accelerometer.and as a matter of fact, i just did, and i can insure you that what ever you do there is no way that you dont black out in those Gs..

you just cant prove anything, you are just theoretically speaking and asking for proofs...

In the other hand, do you have any proofs that the things i mentioned about the reduced physiology effect are not real?have you made any tests your self with an accelerometer so you can see it by your self?? i guess not

well guess what, i did, and It wasn't my imagination when i laconically asked if physiology effects reduced indeed,it was some facts..

cheers..

Edited by KG200_Achilleus

Share this post


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

i have proof that you could never reach such a high Gs, even 6-7 Gs without blacking out, and the proof is the accelerometer.and as a matter of fact, i just did,

All we have is "This is true because i said so." that entirely relies on us assuming that you are a credible source, which there is no evidence to suggest that you are. 

 

6 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

you just cant prove anything, you are just theoretically speaking and asking for proofs...

This is the point, until you provide any evidence backing up your claims, my claims are equally as valid as yours since neither of us has any credibility as a source on this nor have we shown any evidence. 

 

3 minutes ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

the other hand, do you have any proofs that the things i mentioned about the reduced physiology effect are not real?have you made any tests your self with an accelerometer so you can see it by your self?? i guess not

The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. One cannot simply make a claim and foist the burden of disproving that claim onto all the other. As i said before "There is a tea pot orbiting the sun, prove me wrong." 

 

Sorry you're getting so tilted over this, but if you cant take a debate without the use of fallacies then stop trying to debate. When you're ready to shoulder your burden of proof i'll be waiting. 😁

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kataphrakt said:

 

 

..shown any evidence. 

 

The point is, that no evidence is needed, especially to you my friend.

thats all

;)

Edited by KG200_Achilleus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, KG200_Achilleus said:

The point is, that no evidence is needed, especially to you my friend.

thats all

;)

 

And thus, we all must assume that everything you say means nothing. 

Share this post


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

 

And thus, we all must assume that everything you say means nothing. 

It means something, to those who knows what it means..;)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

It means something, to those who knows what it means..;)

Then what do you achieve by trolling here with your claims that your refuse to back up? 🤣

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there a way to disable that pilot moaning? It's getting annoying after a while to be honest.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...