WOW on Physiology

[Talisman]

I always understood that, in terms of pulling g, the 'rate of onset' is a critical factor and of great danger to the pilot, rather then just the g number alone.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman 

[MaxTurn]

An interesting read.  Section 3, may me think of things differently. 

 

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

 

Another older publication at NASA:

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4201/ch2-4.htm

[357th_Dog]

As I said...this all boils down to the fact that people are unhappy they can't pull UFO tricks anymore and want the old way that they were used to flying and fighting back

 

[LLv24_Zami]

12 minutes ago, 357th_Dog said:

As I said...this all boils down to the fact that people are unhappy they can't pull UFO tricks anymore and want the old way that they were used to flying and fighting back

 

UFOs ain't coming back so they just better get used to it ?

[Requiem]

Please perform your own tests as well instead of making a judgement based on the one video I posted as a comparison to the other rolling video. Perform level turns at high airspeed by entering the turn smoothly, gradually increasing back pressure and Angle of Bank, and see how much +G you can hold without losing consciousness.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, 357th_Dog said:

As I said...this all boils down to the fact that people are unhappy they can't pull UFO tricks anymore and want the old way that they were used to flying and fighting back

 

 

AbsoF’inglutely.

[Darkmouse]

5 hours ago, Floppy_Sock said:

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

Interesting numbers and a well reasoned work through of g load, putting more meat on the bones of what I was too lazy to research properly. 

 

I'm interested in what the vocal hecklers will make of them. I realise that statement may raise some hackles, but the attitude that tries to shut down all discussion is just as irritating as the all out trolling of, 'this is shit and wrong', without any constructive argument. 

 

I am also very much enjoying the current implementation and think it is a vast improvement over the old system and would be happy to leave it as it is - I just feel that from an objective standpoint it is a little too restrictive.

 

I can certainly pull more real g than my virtual pilot!? 

Ps. I don't play online and have no interest in 'UFO manoeuvres'. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Darkmouse

[MaxTurn]

I don't play online and have never seen or performed an UFO maneuver.  What I can't believe is the climb rate for 109's.   I know it was comparatively excellent until the 44 or 45 but man can those guys go.  However, I think if you adjust your stick settings then you can avoid some of the effects.  But a barrel roll does not appear to be a high g maneuver.  Think about things in terms of vectors.  I think to do a good barrel roll is hard.  But what was forbidden for most planes was snap rolls and flying inverted for more than just a few seconds.  Fuel injection solved the problem with getting fuel while inverted but how about oil? 

[Bert_Foster]

On 10/9/2019 at 8:32 AM, Gambit21 said:

 

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.

Err no it cant If there is any pitch rate involved (and there always is in a barrel roll) there will be a G increment ... yes I know Iam being a pedant here ....

On 10/9/2019 at 9:05 AM, 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.)

 

Yep but that is not a barrel roll

 

[Gambit21]

12 minutes ago, Bert_Foster said:

Err no it cant If there is any pitch rate involved (and there always is in a barrel roll) there will be a G increment ... yes I know Iam being a pedant here ....

Yep but that is not a barrel roll

 

 

That's OK, also it was clarified already.

[Feathered_IV]

I can’t help wondering how a Zero would fare in the game now with the new pilot physiology. 

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

3 minutes ago, Feathered_IV said:

I can’t help wondering how a Zero would fare in the game now with the new pilot physiology. 

 

Beautifurry!

[KG200_Achilleus]

[edited]

 

7. Comments containing profanity, personal insults, accusations of cheating, excessive rudeness, vulgarity, drug propaganda, political and religious discussion and propaganda, all manifestations of Nazism and racist statements, calls to overthrow governments by force, inciting ethnic hatred, humiliation of persons of a particular gender, sexual orientation or religion are not allowed and will result in a ban.

 

First and last warning

Edited October 10, 2019 by SYN_Haashashin

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, Feathered_IV said:

I can’t help wondering how a Zero would fare in the game now with the new pilot physiology. 

 

Asian physiology is completely different: rice and fish sauce etc.  

 

[JtD]

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...

[Mac_Messer]

We could really use a generic G meter to show people how unbelievably unrealistic flying habits they got.

[Blackhawk_FR]

As we don't have an accelerometer in game, I tried to see how much G were needed to see the first effects of the black out ("grey out") with the bank angle (G = 1 / cos bank°). 

We see those effects at about 77/79°, which give 4,5 / 5,2G. To me it's very correct. 

 

The question is more about how fast the pilot is getting tired and loosing his G tolerance. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by F/JG300_Faucon

[Gambit21]

11 hours ago, Feathered_IV said:

I can’t help wondering how a Zero would fare in the game now with the new pilot physiology. 

 

It will be at even more of an advantage in a knife fight, with a Wildcat or Hellcat etc attempting a higher energy pass on it.

 

It’s control authority decreases drastically at higher speeds, so it’s not operating in that higher G envelope.

Edited October 10, 2019 by Gambit21

[Darkmouse]

I am going to go against my better judgement and dig out my original centrifuge training footage when I am next home and put it up for public scrutiny. I make some horrendous noises, but it may help to illustrate my point  that it is quite possible to withstand higher g than is currently depicted, without g pants. 

 

It was along time ago, and at the time I drank and smoked heavily and had never set foot in a gym (still haven't). I have given up smoking and drinking though :-(. 

[Quinte]

2 hours ago, F/JG300_Faucon said:

As we don't have an accelerometer in game, I tried to see how much G were needed to see the first effects of the black out ("grey out") with the bank angle (G = 1 / cos bank°). 

We see those effects at about 77/79°, which give 4,5 / 5,2G. To me it's very correct. 

 

The question is more about how fast the pilot is getting tired and loosing his G tolerance. 

Here we enter the massively subjective realm of first hand accounts and feelings, but overall, most fighter pilot memoirs show that the pilots were living on the edge. They were sleeping very little, constantly exhausted, kept going by abusive amounts of drugs, obviously suffering from PTSD. Add to that the fact that while you as a pilot can concentrate on executing your aerobatics perfectly, they were pulling like mad with the very immediate fear of dying from a shell to the face.

 

All in all, it seems very logical to me to have a WW2 pilot handling Gs like a very tired modern aerobatics pilot.

[Gambit21]

1 hour ago, Darkmouse said:

I am going to go against my better judgement and dig out my original centrifuge training footage when I am next home and put it up for public scrutiny. I make some horrendous noises, but it may help to illustrate my point  that it is quite possible to withstand higher g than is currently depicted, without g pants. 

 

It was along time ago, and at the time I drank and smoked heavily and had never set foot in a gym (still haven't). I have given up smoking and drinking though :-(. 

 

Blue Angels don’t wear pants either.

They train and train and train. 

 

So I wouldn’t expect my virtual WWII pilot to perform at that level of tolerance.

 

Maybe on par with a hard drinking, non-sleeping, stressed out Blue Angel pilot who’s in the middle of a divorce and also missed his practice time for a.few weeks. ?

[RedKestrel]

1 minute ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Blue Angels don’t wear pants either.

?

You guys have been wearing pants while you play this game? Y'all are missing out.

[Floppy_Sock]

@Gambit21

 

Angles pilots tolerance is extreme. 9 g for 10-15 seconds with just the L-1.

 

That's far beyond what any ww2 era fighter aircraft can produce. Sustained g is on the order of 3 at most. So your drunken, non-sleeping, stressed blue angle would probably snooze through it. 

 

Only way you get close to that is if you're pulling out of a dive. I crunched the numbers for max lift in my old post for the 109 k-4 at 500kph but I didn't calculate the drag force. Would be interesting to see how steep of a dive you need to sustain that pull at 500 kph. I don't have the Cd or the wetted area of the aircraft to crunch that. 

Edit:

I tested the d9 and k4 with the physio model off just for grins. Even in a perfect vertical dive, the moment you begin to pull, the aircraft stops accelerating. The k-4 slows down markedly and the d9 sits pretty at about 500 until just about level if you're pulling to nibble. That puts you at about 5.5g. for 5 seconds from vertical to wings level. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Floppy_Sock

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Blue Angels don’t wear pants either.

They train and train and train. 

 

So I wouldn’t expect my virtual WWII pilot to perform at that level of tolerance.

 

Maybe on par with a hard drinking, non-sleeping, stressed out Blue Angel pilot who’s in the middle of a divorce and also missed his practice time for a.few weeks. ?

 

In 2007 a Blue Angel died in a crash blamed on g-loc.  I think they fly closer to the edge than people realize.

[Gambit21]

33 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

 

In 2007 a Blue Angel died in a crash blamed on g-loc.  I think they fly closer to the edge than people realize.

 

I had no idea that was the cause of that crash.

 

Sidenote - they’re converting to Super Hornets finally in 2021.

 

More interesting is what will the T-Birds fly after the Viper.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 hour ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I had no idea that was the cause of that crash.

 

Sidenote - they’re converting to Super Hornets finally in 2021.

 

More interesting is what will the T-Birds fly after the Viper.

 

Yeah, he was rejoining the formation after a maneuver and pulled a little too hard.  

 

TBirds will probably be using drones next.  On the plus side, the formation will be a little tighter with drones.

[Rjel]

2 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

 

I had no idea that was the cause of that crash.

 

Sidenote - they’re converting to Super Hornets finally in 2021.

 

More interesting is what will the T-Birds fly after the Viper.

I can't imagine them transitioning to the F-22 or worse, the F-35. That doesn't leave many options as far as anything in the near future but the F-16. Still an amazing aircraft for them to perform in.

[Darkmouse]

6 minutes ago, Rjel said:

F-16. Still an amazing aircraft for them to perform in.

Which has plenty of life left in it yet!

 

My steed has........48 years of front line service and counting!(ish, its had an upgrade) Guesses on the back of a postcard. 

Edited October 10, 2019 by Darkmouse

[Murleen]

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

[SJ_Butcher]

Lol people comparing blue angels with a ww2 pilot xD. Both are not comparable, one wear a anti G suit, the other not, one fought every day many missions at day, while other just for fun, one rest much more than the other, one was on constant war, stressed by the missions, teammates dead, anxiety. Planes were not designed with specificall pilot positions, there are a lot of factors that don't make this even close to be comparable, just stop complaining for something that's not comparable in their conditions.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627562-200-maxed-out-how-many-gs-can-you-pull/amp/

 

Edited October 11, 2019 by SJ_Butcher

[Bert_Foster]

So can I equip my pilot in game with a G suit ? to take advantage of its capabilities ?

[Gambit21]

4 hours ago, SJ_Butcher said:

Lol people comparing blue angels with a ww2 pilot xD. Both are not comparable, one wear a anti G suit, the other not, one fought every day many missions at day, while other just for fun, one rest much more than the other, one was on constant war, stressed by the missions, teammates dead, anxiety. Planes were not designed with specificall pilot positions, there are a lot of factors that don't make this even close to be comparable, just stop complaining for something that's not comparable in their conditions.

 

I see you didn’t actually read the posts - or failed to comprehend them. Try again.

[Legioneod]

6 minutes ago, Bert_Foster said:

So can I equip my pilot in game with a G suit ? to take advantage of its capabilities ?

Only American pilots get G suits, or do you already know that? Haven't been following this thread much so forgive me if you were being sarcastic.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Legioneod

[Bert_Foster]

No not being sarcastic at all. So the US pilots get G suits by default  ? or is their a means to select G suits ?

 

Yes I am aware that only the US really fielded G suits operationally in WWII ... Recalling that not only a G suit is required but an airframe modification is also required to supply the air through a G valve to pump the suit up.

Edited October 11, 2019 by Bert_Foster

[Lusekofte]

On 10/10/2019 at 6:59 AM, Feathered_IV said:

I can’t help wondering how a Zero would fare in the game now with the new pilot physiology. 

 

Crap that remark made me more sceptic about the whole thing. We get weird behaviors in some planes flying outside its real envelope because of this game engine. Physiology might be the wrong approach if it take away the few advantages a plane has

[bzc3lk]

8 minutes ago, LuseKofte said:

 

Crap that remark made me more sceptic about the whole thing. We get weird behaviors in some planes flying outside its real envelope because of this game engine. Physiology might be the wrong approach if it take away the few advantages a plane has

 

The advantages of the plane are still there. The physiology factor makes you more judicious with your tactics and  manoeuvres instead of the previous carefree style of flying. Pre-patch style of flying below is  now a thing of the past.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Panzerlang]

Funny how the previous group-think, for years, was "Planes are fine, FMs are fine!", now the group-think is "Physiology has done away with all the UFO BS, yay!"

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

Physiology is the best thing this game has ever had. Will seals still be clubbed? Yes but with far less gay abandon. And meanwhile the *real* pilots will have a far superior experience.

Edited October 11, 2019 by J3Hetzer

[bzc3lk]

16 minutes ago, J3Hetzer said:

Funny how the previous group-think, for years, was "Planes are fine, FMs are fine!"

 

I think this link will debunk that statement!  FM's were always a bone of contention. What the physiology has done is to render the abuse by some players concerning some of the "FM idiosyncrasies" to the pages of history.

 

 https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/94-fm-ai-discussion/page/6/

Edited October 11, 2019 by bzc3lk

[Darkmouse]

Regarding centrifuge footage - it's going to be a couple of weeks at least until I get home to dig it out. 

 

Yesterday I bumped into a friend of mine who was amongst the 9 on my course that day, and we had a chat about it. I had forgotten that the requirement was to be able to pull 6g for 15 seconds without g suit. We all managed that easily - there was an option to push further if you wanted to - all pushed to the 7-7.5 (sustained) range and one of the course g-loc'd at 7. It wasn't me! 

 

Bare in mind that for all of us this would have been our first exposure to anything over about 4g. 

[Lusekofte]

Ok I am not against the new physiology and effect. I think it is a interesting feature. 

But it is new, I believe the limitations will be adjusted. Like all new things here. 

We have a tendency to overthink everything. Those depending on us as paying customers do also a lot of ? thinking.