Jump to content
Tipsi

Why I think there should be a G-Force "indicator"...

Recommended Posts

Definitely should be some indicator that you’re still too affected by G To bail out. Not sure what. Breathing? Dimmed vision? Heartbeat?

 

Edited by von_Michelstamm

Share this post


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

Definitely should be some indicator that you’re still too affected by G To bail out. Not sure what. Breathing? Dimmed vision? Heartbeat?

 

 

Generic cussing and banging sounds kinda like this?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself fly in VR and with nothing else showing but my given plane’s cockpit. I have no “compass bearing in the lower left corner” nor any other HUD aids when I fly figuring if they could do it then, so can I now. I like to keep it real. That’s just me. It’s the main reason the arcade franchise War Thunder no longer hogs space on my SSD.
 

In so far as blacking out without warning I get plenty now through the sim and can pretty much ride that ragged edge without going completely limp. I’m very happy with the current effects they designed into the sim and think it was a huge step forward into increasingly striving to keep things as real as possible while flying at our desk.

Yeah, I know HUD aids are an option (thank God not mandatory) but to do without forces me to fly “by the numbers“ and continuously improve on things such as  engine management, navigation and the like which I love as it's challenging. I know the OP though is discussing G forces, but again I go back to my second paragraph.
 

I guess if one decides they need to have that option on screen, then who cares? If you don’t feel the need for it leave it unchecked but I’m wondering if there would be a way to exploit this in multiplayer to some degree? I honestly don’t know as I do not fly multiplayer.

 

The devs may go back in and add a few tweaks to it in order to further enhance those effects which by all means in so long as it further ENHANCES the REALITY of what they are trying to accomplish then two big thumbs up, but I tend to cringe about dedicating time and resources to what I consider to be arcade aids.

 
Just my two cents.

 

 

Edited by BornToBattle
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I (as a very inexperienced pilot) find the current system fine to determine when i'm on the edge of blacking out; however, i still struggle to tell when i'm starting a pull too hard. I think a better indicator of how hard of G-forces i'm pulling would be helpful for the realistic setting but i feel a numerical counter would pull me out of immersion a bit. i think some adjustment to the cues might be able to do this.

 

For the casual side i think a numerical G-counter would actually be a fairly big benefit to the game. It'd let you try things out and see just how many Gs you started pulling in a turn. 

Share this post


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

I (as a very inexperienced pilot) find the current system fine to determine when i'm on the edge of blacking out; however, i still struggle to tell when i'm starting a pull too hard. I think a better indicator of how hard of G-forces i'm pulling would be helpful for the realistic setting but i feel a numerical counter would pull me out of immersion a bit. i think some adjustment to the cues might be able to do this.

 

For the casual side i think a numerical G-counter would actually be a fairly big benefit to the game. It'd let you try things out and see just how many Gs you started pulling in a turn. 

About this feature I'm completely neutral (however I think it can increase the gamey feeling if it is introduced as a numeral)

 

But I have to say that overcontroling is something we all do in the beginning, and with time and practiced you get a feel for it, and as you've said yourself it is quite easy to learn the limit and stick to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/27/2019 at 5:39 AM, Feathered_IV said:

I don’t really need some health bar to over-explain how many G’s I’m pulling.  If the screen begins to go dark I already know that’s enough.  

 

That's where I'm at.

I don't need to know until I'm nearing the edge, and I have indicators already that let me know when that's happening.

Otherwise, I don't care if I'm at 2G's, or 4.5G's etc.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Simply add an audible heartbeat that starts at a desired G number and beats recharge faster or stronger

 

 

In Warthunder such tools are allowed

Here you can hear the whole thing well:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't want a G indicator. On a desktop flight sim, I think it is ok to allow for certain subtle sounds, creaks, or other audible indicators that indicate you are pushing up against something, even if you wouldn't hear those sounds in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a very good topic. A RL pilot would know when the G forces would influencing his body and brain. He could feel it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not really needed, but if it was easy to add to the speed-bar-thing, then why not. If it is like a part of the current info bar that can be turned off on expert servers.

P.S. I see people are still talking about the compass in the lower left hand corner - I think mine has been gone for a while now, when flying on expert servers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but I am against an ad a noise fits better to "feel" the G

 

 

And "expert server" that would turn off then no "expert" server anymore because something is turned off what you have in real life

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 12:51 PM, Tipsi said:

A real pilot, flying a real plane, feels the effects of G forces [...]

 

What do you think?

 

I agree entirely. But let me add there are other relevant forces being felt, like the feeling you're being slightly pushed to the right, or left, or the subtle "climb" or "descent" feeling (some real pilot help me here). We should have that too. Let's call it Visual Force Feedback.

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

 But let me add there are other relevant forces being felt, like the feeling you're being slightly pushed to the right, or left, or the subtle "climb" or "descent" feeling (some real pilot help me here). We should have that too. Let's call it Visual Force Feedback.

For those things, we have: 
the VSI - Vertical Speed Indicator, which shows climb/descent rate. And we have the turn and bank indicator and/or the slip indicator ('the ball') which shows sideslip in every plane in the sim. So we have visual feedback to show us these things already - the instruments from the real life aircraft.

As far as the feeling goes...pilots do have this feeling in real life, but it is often deceptive and even extremely experienced pilots get disoriented when they can't see outside the aircraft. There's a reason pilots need to be able to fly on instruments if they want to fly at night or in overcast weather. Pilots in small aircraft enter a cloud bank flying straight and level, and then emerge inverted in a steep dive, unable to recover, and are killed. There are accidents every year of pilots not qualified in flying on instruments crashing because they literally were unable to tell which way was up, if they were climbing or descending, etc.

It should be said though that there are a few aircraft in the sim that don't have the instruments that are considered minimally required for instrument flight (e.g. the Yak-1 does not have a VSI, so you have to watch the altimeter instead. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another option maybe would be a slight head movement to various ranges as the pilot is pulled against the seat restraints/his spine is compressed/expanded. So with slight G's the head slides a short distance, with higher G the head slides further from center to a max range from center at max g. 

 

I realize this could have the effect of making people nauseous, especially in VR, so it would need to be a clickable option. That said, I'd be willing to give it a try in VR, motion sickness from G forces is a reality and something your stomach needs to adjust to in real life.  

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

For those things, we have: 
the VSI - Vertical Speed Indicator, which shows climb/descent rate. And we have the turn and bank indicator and/or the slip indicator ('the ball') which shows sideslip in every plane in the sim. So we have visual feedback to show us these things already - the instruments from the real life aircraft.

As far as the feeling goes...pilots do have this feeling in real life, but it is often deceptive and even extremely experienced pilots get disoriented when they can't see outside the aircraft. There's a reason pilots need to be able to fly on instruments if they want to fly at night or in overcast weather. Pilots in small aircraft enter a cloud bank flying straight and level, and then emerge inverted in a steep dive, unable to recover, and are killed. There are accidents every year of pilots not qualified in flying on instruments crashing because they literally were unable to tell which way was up, if they were climbing or descending, etc.

It should be said though that there are a few aircraft in the sim that don't have the instruments that are considered minimally required for instrument flight (e.g. the Yak-1 does not have a VSI, so you have to watch the altimeter instead. 

 

And many FC planes don't have some or all of these instruments.

 

The fact that these feelings may be deceptive for controlling the plane, and that these real life limitations would be transported to the ingame visual indicators is not in itself bad. It's a realistic limitation. I'd be quite happy with exactly that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

And many FC planes don't have some or all of these instruments.

 

The fact that these feelings may be deceptive for controlling the plane, and that these real life limitations would be transported to the ingame visual indicators is not in itself bad. It's a realistic limitation. I'd be quite happy with exactly that.

I can't honestly think of a visual indicator in-game that isn't going to be very obtrusive or motion-sickness inducing (like with head movement). 

I feel we are really overthinking this. With G-forces, there are visual and audio indicators present in game to tell you when you are pulling significant G. In the planes the sideslip indicator and the altimeter tell you if you are slipping or climbing/descending. Trying to simulate every feeling in the cockpit with visual indicators is going to make it more confusing to figure out what's going on, rather than less.

If people want a g indicator in the HUD I think that's fine, having it on or off won't convey any more advantage than running tech tips (probably less advantage than tech tips tbh). I have my direction indicator on in the HUD sometimes because my headtracking gives me real trouble reading some of the directional indicators in some cockpits (I have limited ability to lean side to side and forward/back with my setup). But I don't think it will really help much since the onset of blackout/greyout and full G-loc depends very much on your pilot fatigue, speed of onset, the plane you're in, etc. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, J2_Bidu said:

 

I agree entirely. But let me add there are other relevant forces being felt, like the feeling you're being slightly pushed to the right, or left, or the subtle "climb" or "descent" feeling (some real pilot help me here). We should have that too. Let's call it Visual Force Feedback.

 

No thanks.

I’ve never felt the slightest need for any of this. Wing buffeting, grey out, other small visual and audio cues are all I’ve ever needed or wanted.

 

A little indicator/s telling me that my virtual pilot is feeling a bit of lateral or negative G, or 2 positive G’s would be utterly superfluous and useless, and if anything detract from immersion rather than add to it.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 11:40 AM, SharpeXB said:

^ I always found the key to flying well in these sims was to “imagine” the stick and G forces. Otherwise it was easy to just over control the aircraft. With the new physiology you get a real warning that you’ve overdone it. 

aren't we after all imagining everything?

 

I always imagine Im Hartmann, even when I try to take off and fail doing so and my plane start describing crazy and uncontrollable circles in the ground. Hartman has it bad days too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion no, we do not need a G meter.

 

We already do get feedback when Gs are being pulled, and beyond that its only a question of experience to learn what maneuvers lead to excessive Gs or not. Eventually you get the hang of it.

 

The only factor that is not quite within our control is the pilot fatigue level: that is something we have no feedback on, though even then you can learn to pick up when you should stop pulling Gs and give your pilot time to rest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was thinking about this the other day and noe I see a forum thread on it. I'd personally like it as an option. Often times once I start blacking out I'll let go of the stick immediately and I still black out. 

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I was thinking about this the other day and noe I see a forum thread on it. I'd personally like it as an option. Often times once I start blacking out I'll let go of the stick immediately and I still black out. 

 

A key point. Could be nice - as an option. Like the engine damaged messages, adjust mixture, etc. Just make it optional and everyone will be happy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/26/2019 at 8:52 AM, fiddlinjim said:

OF COURSE I can hear you say "That's unrealistic!". Yes. True.

 

This technology did not exist when the planes were originally built and flown  and I for one see no justification to implement an unrealistic advantage.

The pilots of the era we have chosen to fly in didn't have G-Force indicators so I would suggest you try DCS Modern Warfare.

 

This exactly why a G indicator is an excellent idea.

 

We need telemetry to validate the code in my opinion. Before the update, both allied and axis pilots blacked out under the same conditions. After the update, '44 allied fighter pilots can withstand more Gs that axis fighter pilots. A G-load indicator will only validate the coding is working as it should. I for one would like to see that difference in when allied pilots blackout vs axis pilots under the same conditions. How much more Gs can allied pilots pull is a valid question. I think right now, it's a it's a SWAG! Like fiddy said "The technology didn't exist to measure the G-force", so how can one simulate how much more Gs one aircraft can pull versus another? :scratch_one-s_head:

 

According to IL-2 modeling - 100% of pilots that flew '44 RAF and USAAF fighters wore G-suits, which is far from the case. G-suits were not standard issue until after WWII. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to talk to a pilot at The Royal Air Force Museum London for over 3 hours about G-Forces and G-suits. According to him, G-suits were to not widely used because they were not widely available. It is my opinion that modeling 100% of '44 allied fighters isn't appropriate. I think it should be a mod to the aircraft aircraft and server admin can limit how many they have.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

"The technology didn't exist to measure the G-force"

 

They didn't have spring balances in the 1940s?

Share this post


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

 

They didn't have spring balances in the 1940s?

 

That was a quote - not my words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, JG7_X-Man said:

 

That was a quote - not my words.

 

Well, you seemed to be quoting it because you thought it was true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

According to IL-2 modeling - 100% of pilots that flew '44 RAF and USAAF fighters wore G-suits, which is far from the case. G-suits were not standard issue until after WWII. Over the weekend I had the opportunity to talk to a pilot at The Royal Air Force Museum London for over 3 hours about G-Forces and G-suits. According to him, G-suits were to not widely used because they were not widely available. It is my opinion that modeling 100% of '44 allied fighters isn't appropriate. I think it should be a mod to the aircraft aircraft and server admin can limit how many they have.

 

 

...and yet when you type all I can think of or see is your silly, juvenile antics in the physiology thread regarding G-suits, the press photos/pilots wearing slacks, off-time clothing etc and you insisting it's all legit flight gear and the photos are not staged. Remember that?

 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a suggestion, in the interests of historical accuracy. For Bodenplatte multiplayer servers, only a limited number of Allied pilots can have G-suits. And only a limited number of Luftwaffe pilots can have fuel in their aircraft. ;)

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

G-suits were not standard issue until after WWII.

 

You really should do some proper research before saying things like that. 

Share this post


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

I have a suggestion, in the interests of historical accuracy. For Bodenplatte multiplayer servers, only a limited number of Allied pilots can have G-suits. And only a limited number of Luftwaffe pilots can have fuel in their aircraft. ;)


Also the Allies can have 300 players, while the Luftwaffe is limited to 25. And only one who isn’t flying their first mission ever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

You really should do some proper research before saying things like that. 

 

You can believe anything you want - but the fact is everyone didn't fly with G-suits in WWII, thus it should be a mod. Like others have suggested.

12 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I have a suggestion, in the interests of historical accuracy. For Bodenplatte multiplayer servers, only a limited number of Allied pilots can have G-suits. And only a limited number of Luftwaffe pilots can have fuel in their aircraft. ;)

 

Bingo! I'll be all for that because it was historically accurate - Jokes aside.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, jokes aside, why would accurately reflecting the number of G-suits available to the Allies be more important than accurately reflecting the number of flyable aircraft available to the Luftwaffe?

 

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LukeFF said:

 

You really should do some proper research before saying things like that. 

 

forgetithesrolling.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think a "G meter"  would be a good idea for the newer pilots to see where they're pulling high G. It has a large effect on gunnery and recovering energy. Have it part of the HUD, if you don't use the HUD you won't see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To those saying that technology didn’t exist in the 40s:

 

Every aircraft back then was equipped with a very accurate and sensitive 3 axis accelerometer that could sense anything between -3 and +9g. These were stock on every pilot that ever flew - the human inner ear. 
 

I would actually suggest a colored vector that indicated the g-force direction overlaid on the HUD (which the pilot would be sensing) that way I also could pay lest attention to the slip indicator and use to make coordinated turns just like real pilots would. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

You can believe anything you want - but the fact is everyone didn't fly with G-suits in WWII, thus it should be a mod. Like others have suggested.

 

Yes, I'll believe what I want, because I've done the research that backs up my point. Those that want it as a mod only want to do so in some vain pursuit of "balance." 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Vain pusit of balance" you say? I think more so historic accuracy: Can we be adults - enough with the mockery dude.

 

Dressing for altitude

 

Very good read here - the meat of the conversation starts at page 80 - page 105.

 

In summary (my deduction maybe be different from yours)

 

Australians:

 

In August 1943, the RAAF conducted trials that pitted a Spitfire Mk V against a Mitsubishi A6M Zero at Eagle Farm, Brisbane, Australia.

The tests showed the Zero was more maneuverable than the Spitfire at all altitudes when neither pilot was wearing a G-suit, but the Spitfire could gain the upper hand if its pilot was wearing a suit and the Zero’s pilot was not.

Based on the results of these trials, the RAAF decided to equip the Spitfires of No. 1 Fighter Wing with the Cotton suit. However, the Australians apparently never used the Cotton suit in combat.

 

British and Canadians:

 

...Dunlop produced at least 800 Mk III suits beginning in September 1941.92 It subsequently became the first G-suit to be used in combat, by the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm while providing cover for Eisenhower’s invasion of North Africa at Oran, Algeria, in November 1942.

Combat trials dragged on for 2 years. Despite several early successes, such as the battle at Oran, and enthusiastic backing from some pilots, British and Canadian fighter pilots ultimately judged the Franks Flying Suit impractical.

National Research Council study noted that “… certain objections were eventually raised against the suit, in particular discomfort while ‘at the ready,’[heat] and difficulty in turning to search for enemy aircraft coming from behind."[cumbersome].

Researchers at the Mayo Clinic conducted this testing in late 1943 and reported it to the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD) Committee on Aviation Medicine on January 19, 1944. Based on this information, the pursuit of hydrostatic suits for acceleration protection was largely abandoned in favor of pneumatic suit systems. [i.e. the US version G-3]

 

Germans:

..Not only had the Germans already invented the Franks Flying Suit, they had dismissed it as impractical. The Canadians and Germans used water to fill the bladders, but this proved to be heavy and uncomfortable for the pilots. The Americans and Australians used gas—compressed.

 

Americans:

...Up to this point, all G-suits, whether designed by Berger Brothers or David Clark, had been high-waist trousers or coveralls. However, the reluctance of fighter pilots to use the suits, mostly due to discomfort, was worrisome to the researchers. In response, George Maison at Wright Field suggested developing a “cutaway” version of the suit that a pilot could wear over whatever clothing was appropriate (i.e., heavy uniforms in cold climates and lighter uniforms in the tropics). It was largely the same path taken by Wilbur Franks in Canada. This resulted in the G-3 suit.

Beginning February 8, 1944, the Army Air Technical Services Command (ATSC) sponsored a set of conferences to standardize G-suits and their supporting equipment as part of classified Project MX-389. Note: The most significant agreement to come out of the conferences was to standardize the design for the G-3 cutaway suit.  November 1944 the Army officially accepted the G-suit [G-3] as standard equipment and began issuing one to every fighter pilot.

...By the end of 1944, more than 4,100 G-3 suits were delivered to the Eighth, Ninth, and Twelfth Air Forces.

 

Note: this is what I base my argument on: ...data soon showed that blackouts and grayouts were happening much less frequently to pilots who wore the suit. Meaning some USAAF pilots did not wear the suit in combat. Thus, this should be a mod. It was like wearing a flak jacket in southeast asia and the middle east, I knew it may save my life, but damn it was hot and heavy and sometimes we just didn't wear it! I see 2/5 wearing the G-2 here so that's not everyone.

 

nored087.jpg

 

The developers should treat this like the armored plate behind the headrest of the early 109s - some took it off for visibility vs safety. Some pilots didn't wear the suit for comfort vs combat advantage.

 

Also, keeping it historic, I think the mod should be for only USAAF aircraft  because of this side Note:  Other than connecting the inflation hose to the valve prior to flight, there was no pilot interaction with the device. This valve became standard equipment on many midproduction Lockheed P-38 Lightnings, Republic P-47 Thunderbolts, and North American P-51 Mustangs...

Also - Vought F4U-1 Corsair and Grumman F6F Hellcat already supplied air pressure for a variety of purposes, including operating de-icer boots and preventing air locks in external drop tanks.

I am sure someone will tell me this was staged - but nonetheless, none of these cats are wearing a G-1, G-2 or G-3 suit.

 

 

 

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you that a simple g-indicator is probably more realistic than that heading indicator in the corner of the screen. I personally disable said compass for the immersion and because it gives an unnecessary advantage in cases of gyro tumble or magnetic compass errors that the actual instruments are susceptible to. Although I still believe that a g-indicator is not really necessary. The breathing cue and the gray out are sufficient indicators of too many Gs; and even in real life if you hank the stick in a maneuverable aircraft at high speed, you're at a great risk of blacking out suddenly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...