Jump to content
Ken5421

Blackouts

Recommended Posts

Was off Sturmovik and came back after a few weeks to a huge number of updates.

 

What do people make of the blackouts?

 

I fly the Spitfire Mark V and IX. Blackouts seems to come on far to easily. All you can do is centre the stuck in that situation. Game feels unplayable in a dog fight. 

 

Also I'm assuming designers have made it harder to bale out at high speed? 

 

Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion: It's great, and if the Spits seem unplayable to you now, it's because you've been used to flying them in ways that would've killed a man. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Finkeren said:

My opinion: It's great, and if the Spits seem unplayable to you now, it's because you've been used to flying them in ways that would've killed a man. 

 

Exactly my thoughts, UFO maneuver are what people want back. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, SJ_Butcher said:

 

Exactly my thoughts, UFO maneuver are what people want back. 

How about relax, maybe guy is SP oriented so instead attacking everybody in every thread you help him by saying he can disable G-loc in difficulty options and the rest is on server admins.

Not everybody here is MP oriented, don't be THAT guy!

Also i understand some ppl cos turning was the only advantage VVS had and now that is almost unusable giving axis players big advantage in a dogfight (early/mid  war planes).

Nobody is going to take away that advantage from you don't worry, you'll get your airkills in a far superior planes.

G-physiology is here and it won't go away, populated servers will keep using it cos it's realistic ;) so no need for forum war!

 

Edited by EAF_Ribbon
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really would just read the thread that already exists on this subject. There you'll find all the opinions you could ever want, as well as the inevitable bitch fight between people that are incapable of accepting the opinions of others. We really don't need to go over all that again. :dash:

Share this post


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

How about relax, maybe guy is SP oriented so instead attacking everybody in every thread you help him by saying he can disable G-loc in difficulty options and the rest is on server admins.

Not everybody here is MP oriented, don't be THAT guy!

Also i understand some ppl cos turning was the only advantage VVS had and now that is almost unusable giving axis players big advantage in a dogfight (early/mid  war planes).

Nobody is going to take away that advantage from you don't worry, you'll get your airkills in a far superior planes.

G-physiology is here and it won't go away, populated servers will keep using it cos it's realistic ;) so no need for forum war!

 

 

I mainly play SP and as I said, I love the new G-loc system. 

 

Regardless if I fight AI or other players I would like to fly my plane within the limits that actually applied in WW2 (or as close an approximation as we can get) 

 

Without the new system, planes like the Spit, and to a certain degree the Yaks, were able to pull sustained Gs beyond what would be tolerable for a human pilot, giving those planes a huge advantage that wasn't quite as large IRL. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I should try the German side planes to feel if the black outs are the same before giving any opinion about it?

At least it is what I shall do ...:salute:

Share this post


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

How about relax, maybe guy is SP oriented so instead attacking everybody in every thread you help him by saying he can disable G-loc in difficulty options and the rest is on server admins.

Not everybody here is MP oriented, don't be THAT guy!

Also i understand some ppl cos turning was the only advantage VVS had and now that is almost unusable giving axis players big advantage in a dogfight (early/mid  war planes).

Nobody is going to take away that advantage from you don't worry, you'll get your airkills in a far superior planes.

G-physiology is here and it won't go away, populated servers will keep using it cos it's realistic ;) so no need for forum war!

 


If you feel like you’ve lost your turn advantage, you’ve been turning at too high of an airspeed in the past. 
 

Max sustained rate should be around 270-ish kph in a Yak for example. You’re nowhere near physio g limits at that speed. 
 

Folks flying around at high speeds and expecting to be able to out-turn a foe just because their aircraft is generally more maneuverable is what is getting people in trouble. Every aircraft has a limit, it’s just that now we finally have the guy in the cockpit with a more realistic limit as well. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this new feature is great and having never experienced G-LOC it seems to be modelled correctly! Much better than pulling ridiculous moves which a human could not handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did some experiments with; BF109k4, FW190A8 and the FW190D9 and the results are the same has for the allied planes. The major difference is for me that the German planes are more rudder directed and for the FW I cannot pull enough G's without going into a spin, a fast  speed one or a slow speed one. Luckily easy to recover from.

So I think that each side is equally handicapped by this new feature but the German tactics and planes characteristics make acrobatics that are less prone to black outs.

Try by yourself and give your own conclusions, mine are not very scientific. :salute:  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Pre said:


If you feel like you’ve lost your turn advantage, you’ve been turning at too high of an airspeed in the past. 
 

Max sustained rate should be around 270-ish kph in a Yak for example. You’re nowhere near physio g limits at that speed. 
 

Folks flying around at high speeds and expecting to be able to out-turn a foe just because their aircraft is generally more maneuverable is what is getting people in trouble. Every aircraft has a limit, it’s just that now we finally have the guy in the cockpit with a more realistic limit as well. 

Thanks i didn't know that! (Sarcasm)

I don't have problem with new G-system....i like it!

Why ppl here need to make discussion about realism from everything, OP asked and i give him answer so he can disable it in options!

And i stated the fact that now (even more realistic it is) advantage gap become greater in axis favour so i understand some players....did i lied?

Btw i fly both sides, but it's silly from individuals to attack OP cos they think devs will remove G feature cos someone dislikes it.

Help the guy for a change!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appreciate the feedback. Yes I agree. Just more realistic and you have to fly within physical limits

Share this post


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

I should try the German side planes to feel if the black outs are the same before giving any opinion about it?

At least it is what I shall do ...:salute:

Fw-190 at high speed has been significantly affected 

1 hour ago, Pre said:


If you feel like you’ve lost your turn advantage, you’ve been turning at too high of an airspeed in the past. 
 

Max sustained rate should be around 270-ish kph in a Yak for example. You’re nowhere near physio g limits at that speed. 
 

Folks flying around at high speeds and expecting to be able to out-turn a foe just because their aircraft is generally more maneuverable is what is getting people in trouble. Every aircraft has a limit, it’s just that now we finally have the guy in the cockpit with a more realistic limit as well. 

 

Honestly. I feel like it's easier to pull G in the F4 now than it is at let's say a Yak. I feel like I can more or less thoughtlessly pull on the stick on the F4 while on the Yak I have to ride the wave of near-g-loc screen blackening. It's really easy to ruin your entire flight in a fw-190 at speeds of over 600 km/h. One false harsh pull on the stick and you face plant into the ground  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, senseispcc said:

I did some experiments with; BF109k4, FW190A8 and the FW190D9 and the results are the same has for the allied planes. The major difference is for me that the German planes are more rudder directed and for the FW I cannot pull enough G's without going into a spin, a fast  speed one or a slow speed one. Luckily easy to recover from.

So I think that each side is equally handicapped by this new feature but the German tactics and planes characteristics make acrobatics that are less prone to black outs.

Try by yourself and give your own conclusions, mine are not very scientific. :salute:  

 

Had the same experience with the P-51.  It turns on you if you are ham fisted with it, and that alone keeps me in check.  For me flying the less nasty planes like the Tempest, GLOC is more of an issue.  Love the feature and the implementation so far.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

for the FW I cannot pull enough G's without going into a spin, a fast  speed one or a slow speed one.

 

Strange, I can easily blackout without stalling in FW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Ken5421 said:

Was off Sturmovik and came back after a few weeks to a huge number of updates.

 

What do people make of the blackouts?

 

I fly the Spitfire Mark V and IX. Blackouts seems to come on far to easily. All you can do is centre the stuck in that situation. Game feels unplayable in a dog fight. 

 

Also I'm assuming designers have made it harder to bale out at high speed? 

 

Would be interested to hear peoples thoughts 

 

Wait... I've already seen this...

 

 

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I want to know is does the AI know we have this?

 

I play SP and think not, if the player experiences a blackout then surely what is chasing him/her should also, yet I die it does not.:cray:

 

So did my Spitfire pilot take off without a G suit and yet the 109 pilot did?

 

Great feature, however, it has to work for both, does it?

 

Oh well, time for bed.

 

 

Wishing you all the very best, Pete.:biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its too harsh too. According to tac view, calculations and this Sim hardware API ur rusty pilot can pull 5G for a longer period of time, while more or less instantly blacking out beyond that.

I read papers on that here:
 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2lmux3xnr2xj7u1/High G Physiological Protection training.pdf?dl=0

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170441.pdf (website down at the moment, looking for the file tomorow)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/751397.pdf  (website down at the moment, looking for the file tomorow)
 
And they state that a aerobatics pilot can withstand 8Gs for 15 seconds.
Capture_exp.PNG
 
While I believe that a current aerobatics pilot has some more measurements up his sleeve than a WW2 Pilot, "our" WW2 Pilot had measures as well. Known in the US as M-1 maneuver, but the Europeans had similar stuff, which added 2-4Gs to the natural G tolerance.
image.png.b57d61c8f888f3fdb6b05f767cd4af42.png
Thats why believe that the current "hard cap" at 5Gs is too harsh. 

Personal opinion:
I know I will get flak for this, but for me the game is less fun now.  The model crashes 1. with plausibility. Why should aircraft designers build maneuverable planes like the 109, Spitfire, Zero etc, if the pilots cant withstand half of the acceleration produced by the planes at cruise speed? Why should designer build planes like the Fw 190, with a good high speed maneuverbility? Pulling up at 600kph will cause like 8Gs.
 
Secondly, gameplay related the defensive dogfights at speed are now really boring. The defender has to get rid of speed, if he can't the fight just developes into a tight "tunnel" downwards or a flat turn.
Furthermore the player can't feel how tired the pilot is, the player cant feel Gs. Despite of playing a sim, this is not reality. We cant feel the Gs.
Therefore I  am all in for a more lenient approach. 

I like the system, I like the black outs, he really don't like current limits.

And now get the stones:
tenor.gif
 
Edited by DerSheriff
  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

I think its too harsh too. According to tac view, calculations and this Sim hardware API ur rusty pilot can pull 5G for a longer period of time, while more or less instantly blacking out beyond that.

I read papers on that here:
 

https://www.dropbox.com/s/2lmux3xnr2xj7u1/High G Physiological Protection training.pdf?dl=0

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a170441.pdf (website down at the moment, looking for the file tomorow)
https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/751397.pdf  (website down at the moment, looking for the file tomorow)
 
And they state that a aerobatics pilot can withstand 8Gs for 15 seconds.
Capture_exp.PNG
 
While I believe that a current aerobatics pilot has some more measurements up his sleeve than a WW2 Pilot, "our" WW2 Pilot had measures as well. Known in the US as M-1 maneuver, but the Europeans had similar stuff, which added 2-4Gs to the natural G tolerance.
image.png.b57d61c8f888f3fdb6b05f767cd4af42.png
Thats why believe that the current "hard cap" at 5Gs is too harsh. 

Personal opinion:
I know I will get flak for this, but for me the game is less fun now.  The model crashes 1. with plausibility. Why should aircraft designers build maneuverable planes like the 109, Spitfire, Zero etc, if the pilots cant withstand half of the acceleration produced by the planes at cruise speed? Why should designer build planes like the Fw 190, with a good high speed maneuverbility? Pulling up at 600kph will cause like 8Gs.
 
Secondly, gameplay related the defensive dogfights at speed are now really boring. The defender has to get rid of speed, if he can't the fight just developes into a tight "tunnel" downwards or a flat turn.
Furthermore the player can't feel how tired the pilot is, the player cant feel Gs. Despite of playing a sim, this is not reality. We cant feel the Gs.
Therefore I  am all in for a more lenient approach. 

I like the system, I like the black outs, he really don't like current limits.

And now get the stones:
tenor.gif
 

 

Not boring ,  much more realistic and fun, now you fly  and think like a real pilot, and defensive flying now works, like sissors etc do work now, you can get rid of your opponent , has been fun fighting Yak 1Bs online and beat them at their game.

Current limits are spot ON in my opinion.

No more UFOs.

You always have the option to turn it off.

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not going into endless discussions now. But I fail to see how this is now possible and wasnt before. Quite on the contrary. Just to be clear. I am not here and saying revert that stuff. I like that we have finally a G-loc, but I would like to make the pilot a tad fitter so we can have better high speed fights.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DerSheriff said:

Not going into endless discussions now. But I fail to see how this is now possible and wasnt before. Quite on the contrary. Just to be clear. I am not here and saying revert that stuff. I like that we have finally a G-loc, but I would like to make the pilot a tad fitter so we can have better high speed fights.

 

Actually higher speeds is where blackouts happens more often, you cannot have high speeds and Gs and not blackout, that is how it was before and we used to see all those incredible and unrealistic maneuvers, which ruined immersion big time.We dont see them anymore, and now looks like WWII guncam footage.

 

This is not an aerobatic simulator where pilots train for aerobatics and G forces and are rested, have lighter airplanes that fly slower.

This was war, long missions, no rest, long days, strees of combat, fatigue, faster airplanes, very hard controls at speeds which requires effort and makes you tired already.

I fly for real and fly often, and can tell you G forces gets you tired, and faster speeds require lots of strength to pull maneuvers, and G forces happen easier at higher speeds , add to this long flights , fatigue and being shot at.

Asking for fitter pilots is like asking what we had before, superhuman pilots.

 

I recommend adapting the flying style to a more realistic flying, which is what we have now.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Finkeren said:

Without the new system, planes like the Spit, and to a certain degree the Yaks, were able to pull sustained Gs beyond what would be tolerable for a human pilot, giving those planes a huge advantage that wasn't quite as large IRL. 

 

That. Exactly what he says. In case you folks don´t like it, you can turn it off, so everyone should be happy.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lately been seeing more dumping the speeds like only German fighters can do and than doing the tumble and stick stir, deliberately throwing it into a violent stall, anything to avoid the incoming 50's from my faster closing fighter.  Isn't looking anything like guncam to me.  Reminds me of classic stick stirring with the old run90's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@II./JG77_motoadve

 

You're pitting your "experience" against substantial evidence. The data he's posted is for the average experience human individual. The data provided in the dev. diary is - crucially - for relaxed individuals. As the papers showed - AGSM were very much the norm by the start of WW2 for all airforces - and if you read the literature he provided, you will see that AGSM - in the average - can increase tolerance by  +4Gz and the suit adds another +1Gz. The suit being relevant only above +5Gz. 

 

So - given that AGSM maneuvers were already implemented during the war, and given the data he provided, it's perfectly physically reasonable to fly these aircraft to their limit. Let me conclude with the following excerpt of the second paper sheriff linked - from which one could conclude, if you were not able to withstand flying your aircraft to the limit - you likely did not survive as a fighter pilot. 

 british_phys.PNG.2c8352841004d7b877da9bec5dab51b0.PNG

 

So - before you go touting that the current model is "realistic"- I urge you to -  at the least - read the information presented to you.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Lately been seeing more dumping the speeds like only German fighters can do and than doing the tumble and stick stir, deliberately throwing it into a violent stall, anything to avoid the incoming 50's from my faster closing fighter.  Isn't looking anything like guncam to me.  Reminds me of classic stick stirring with the old run90's.

 

Forcing an overshoot is a valid tactic... However, it's the last resort type of thing when you are sure that you won't out-maneuver (or outrun) the enemy. It's far easier to do in a computer game because if it worked then great; if not (got hit anyway or didn't recover) then you can just re-spawn seconds later... no such "luxury" was available IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What i want to know is if they factored in the booze ups at the mess the night before into their g tolerance calculations. Like a hangerover coefficient. We all know the fly boys never past up a good old piss up.

 

All aside I play exclusively sp as I don't have the time for mp and I think the new g tolerance is great.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@DerSheriff You didn't say "Jehova" so no stoning for you today 😂

 

Here are some examples of the current model next to a graph showing the G-forces in play in the P-51D (with G-suit). I flew these and sent the tracks to @Floppy_Sock who was kind enough to add his real-time graphing to the videos you'll see in the folder linked below. Floppy is working on similar Spitfire IX versions on at the moment (no G-suit).

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1jmQO_dOuTkRjYBSJTTX-HLMs43SZMAxu

  • P-51 5G sustained (about 90 secs)
  • P-51 6G Sustained (about 70 secs)
  • P-51 7G sustained (about 30 secs)
  • P-51 Max G to blackout
  • P-51 Max G to blackout but no loss of consciousness

 

 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

 

People who dont like it just turn it off, if you play SP or in MP look for servers that have this option off.

 

Read the book the big show, Pierre Closterman he blacked out many times in dogfights.

Steinhoff also talks about blacking out in another book.

Plenty of accounts of fatigue G forces and blacking out.

That text does not mean anything, trying to impress saying is evidence , there were hundreds pilots accounts in WWII talking about blacking out in lots of books.

 

For me no turning back to  the old pilot physics model.

 

 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

 

People who dont like it just turn it off, if you play SP or in MP look for servers that have this option off.

 

Read the book the big show, Pierre Closterman he blacked out many times in dogfights.

Steinhoff also talks about blacking out in another book.

Plenty of accounts of fatigue G forces and blacking out.

That text does not mean anything, trying to impress saying is evidence , there were hundreds pilots accounts in WWII talking about blacking out in lots of books.

 

For me no turning back to  the old pilot physics model.

 

 

 

Agreed. People just need to take some time and adjust. Also would help if they learned how to fly a bit better instead of being ham fisted, which I think is a majority of peoples problems along with poor habits from old G model.

Edited by Legioneod
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't distrust them. They've made a fantastic game. They also took a stab at something that's really difficult to model and they may have used different data sets that I've gathered or for whatever reason they decided to make the tolerances as low as they currently are. However,  the tests that I've done indicate the threshold and criteria for gloc is too low for an experience pilot. 

 

An aside - just like you, I don't want to fly without a physio model. I think it's important.  I just want it to be as accurate as possible and I think sheriff and others have provided ample evidence that, in its current state, it is not quite there yet. 

Edited by Floppy_Sock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

 

People who dont like it just turn it off, if you play SP or in MP look for servers that have this option off.

 

Read the book the big show, Pierre Closterman he blacked out many times in dogfights.

Steinhoff also talks about blacking out in another book.

Plenty of accounts of fatigue G forces and blacking out.

That text does not mean anything, trying to impress saying is evidence , there were hundreds pilots accounts in WWII talking about blacking out in lots of books.

 

For me no turning back to  the old pilot physics model.

 

 

Nobody wants it gone! 

Of course there's evidence of blackouts, that was the reality. Of course most people here like these effects and hardly anyone will disable them (especially not server admins!). The discussion here is not about distrusting the devs or negating the physiology, nor it is aimed at purely debating decisions to no end.

It's just about the balance of combat fatigue and pilots' capabilities, on which evidence differs and so do opinions. Since we don't know the details for a fact, not everybody has to agree on current values. Healthy discussion never hurts and it might help improve something, so let's not deprive ourselves of that privilege ;)

Ultimately, that's the point of the forums! 😉

 

Edited by RavN_Sone
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

Fw-190 at high speed has been significantly affected 

 

Honestly. I feel like it's easier to pull G in the F4 now than it is at let's say a Yak. I feel like I can more or less thoughtlessly pull on the stick on the F4 while on the Yak I have to ride the wave of near-g-loc screen blackening. It's really easy to ruin your entire flight in a fw-190 at speeds of over 600 km/h. One false harsh pull on the stick and you face plant into the ground  

 

Like someone else said, I find the Tempest to be "blackout city" given the control authority! 

 

If you could compare the G between the two (my understanding is that there is software that allows this), you'd probably appreciate even more the control authority aircraft like the 190, Tempest, Mustang, and (apparently) the Yak have. And the disadvantage the 109 is at. I know I sure do. 

 

It'll be interesting to see over time if pilots end up preferring the 109 based off the reduced control authority at speed, which leads to fewer blackouts. 

 

 

 

8 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Thanks i didn't know that! (Sarcasm)

I don't have problem with new G-system....i like it!

Why ppl here need to make discussion about realism from everything, OP asked and i give him answer so he can disable it in options!

And i stated the fact that now (even more realistic it is) advantage gap become greater in axis favour so i understand some players....did i lied?

Btw i fly both sides, but it's silly from individuals to attack OP cos they think devs will remove G feature cos someone dislikes it.

Help the guy for a change!

 

 

My post was in response to this part specifically: 

 

Quote

Also i understand some ppl cos turning was the only advantage VVS had and now that is almost unusable giving axis players big advantage in a dogfight (early/mid  war planes).

 

If you read what I said again, you'll probably find that it 1) is true, 2) is helpful to those who may not understand the relationship between maneuver entry speed and G and 3) doesn't require a "sarcas[tic]" response from you. 

Edited by Pre
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tyberan said:

What i want to know is if they factored in the booze ups at the mess the night before into their g tolerance calculations. Like a hangerover coefficient. We all know the fly boys never past up a good old piss up.

 

True that. Quote:

 

Quote

“...We partied until dawn and most of our pilots, especially the officers, got quite drunk. We suddenly heard a roar of aircraft engines - and realized that our black men were readying our aircraft, the fitters warming up our engines to prepare them for a sortie. The noise and the realization of an impending mission brought us brutally back to the present. We slouched along to the Gruppe command post where we learned that we were immediately to fly to the airfield of Burgh, where we were to stay at readiness for a sortie in cooperation with I./JG 3. Before being dispatched to Burg we all drank enormous amounts of coffee to sober ourselves up. “We have never seen a better formation take-off ” or so our technicians told us later. Well, it was the alcohol!” Having taken off, two pilots forgot to retract their undercarriage. Calling them by radio did not help at all, since neither of them had turned it on, given that they were suffering from terrible hangovers and any further noise would have caused them even greater suffering. Nevertheless, we landed without incident in Burg. Some of our pilots, however, to the astonishment of our I./JG 3 colleagues, climbed down from their cockpits, and disappearing slyly behind the tails of their fighters, promptly threw up....”

 

This story is continued in Fw. Emil Bernd’s diaries; “As the most experienced Schwarmführer of 6. Staffel I flew with six machines to Burg near Magdeburg. After a smooth landing I reported to Oblt. Krupinski; ” 6. Staffel with six machines, combat ready, one pilot indisposed! ” Ofhr. Grill was holding tightly to his port wing, throwing up his dinner eaten that previous evening in our mess. Krupinski, who was still in his cockpit in his pyjamas and parachute –which was all he was wearing- ordered a fitter standing close by,.. "Run over to Hptm. Mertens (I./JG 3 Kommandeur) and fetch me a uniform.."

 

More here:

 

http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2016/11/gorings-pill-stimulant-use-and-alcohol.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

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. The dev's will/could feel pressure to change something and some people will be happy and some people won't. If the developers have to revisit functions and features this will most likely slow things down, I'm fairly sure they probably don't have the time. 

IRL studies have shown that some individuals can tolerate G-Force better than others and there are many videos out there showing modern day pilots taking excessive amounts of G. There are of course other videos where pilots really do genuinely look like they're struggling at around 5 and one guy in this video starts panicking at 2 G

I  like the system very much, you have to think much more about how you fly. I'm really not that great of a virtual pilot but I am really enjoying the challenge the current system brings. It certainly brings a whole new dynamic to multiplayer. I genuinely don't know how accurate it is is because I've never flown at high speed or in combat in a WWII aircraft.

As others pointed out, there is an "off" switch. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, II./JG77_motoadve said:

Why do people distrust the developers decisions so much? They want to debate it to no end.

 

Because many people have a problem dealing with change, especially when they are forced to change behaviour that always worked before suddenly becoming invalid.

 

After all, it's all about people's feelings. They often directly admit it. My favorite example comes is following situation:

 

Racing game developer: 'We worked closely with real world race drivers, who helped us to improve the driving model based on their experience, to give the players a better, more realistic experience than ever before.'

 

Long time players: 'The new driving model feels all wrong. Game is bad! Old game far better!'

 

It's quite ironic that people who claim to want an experience as realistic as possible often play the 'feelings card' when it comes to change that is based on scientific evidence and facts, because in the end all they communicate can be boiled down to 'I have trouble when it comes to coping with change.'

Edited by Fritz_X
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...