Jump to content
stupor-mundi

Is physiology a bit overdone?

Recommended Posts

I lost two pilots in TAW by pulling too many Gs low to the ground.

 

I love the challenge and the  pilot physiology, its a matter of adapting and learning, it has made the game a lot more interesting and realistic. 

Adding pilot physiology is the best 2019 move by the developers IMHO, a game changer towards more realistic simulation.

And I like the way it is now, would not change the limits.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 12

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I will add to this discussion is that the pilot injury simulation of the physiology (blackouts from splash damage/shock) should be removed or the odds of it happening reduced drastically. It is not realistic at all. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if we simply accept these boundaries, and fly accordingly. 
 

1 hour ago, SCG_Wulfe said:

. It is not realistic at all. 


Are you sure? Shock is extremely common if you get shot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

What if we simply accept these boundaries, and fly accordingly. 
 


Are you sure? Shock is extremely common if you get shot


Maybe he has experience getting shot by 30mm and 20mm or .50cals 

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My own concerns about physiology are similar to what most people have written,

and perhaps my question (that has probably been asked before, but I haven't seen it yet) is more whether the pilot seating position in the 109 and 190 (from memory) being designed to help with G loads during combat has been factored in to give some G tolerance or not.


Junkers did some testing during the war and the results (according to the all knowing and unfaultable wiki, a.k.a take with a grain of salt) are:

"Extensive tests were carried out by the Junkers works at their Dessau plant. It was discovered that the highest load a pilot could endure was 8.5g for three seconds, when the aircraft was pushed to its limit by the centrifugal forces. At less than 4g, no visual problems or loss of consciousness were experienced. Above 6g, 50% of pilots suffered visual problems,
or 
"greyout".

With 40%, vision vanished altogether from 7.5g upwards and 
black-out sometimes occurred.

Despite this blindness, the pilot could maintain consciousness and was capable of "bodily reactions". After more than three seconds, half the subjects passed out.

The pilot would regain consciousness two or three seconds after the centrifugal forces had dropped below 3g and had lasted no longer than three seconds. In a crouched position, pilots could withstand 7.5g and were able to remain functional for a short duration.

In this position, Junkers concluded that ⅔ of pilots could withstand 8g and perhaps 9g for three to five seconds without vision defects which, under war conditions, was acceptable.


During tests with the Ju 87 A-2, new technologies were tried out to reduce the effects of g. The pressurised cabin was of great importance during this research. Testing revealed that at high altitude, even 2g could cause death in an unpressurised cabin and without appropriate clothing.

This new technology, along with special clothing and oxygen masks, was researched and tested. When the 
United States Army occupied the Junkers factory at Dessau on 21 April 1945, they were both impressed at and interested in the medical flight tests with the Ju 87."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am under impression some people believe we are flying real aircraft. Or capable off doing so. 
G force impact is another effect we have to live by, how it impact us will never be like the real thing. Being able to manouver in a dogfight required strength and endurance, while we think it is funny, many pilots experiencing a dogfight said after a couple of minutes they wanted it to end, even if it meant  they loose it. It was painful. While the only thing we risk is straining a finger. 
To me these boundaries mean I have to think of one more thing while flying, it simulate piloting and I like that. 

  • Upvote 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 12/27/2019 at 6:13 PM, DerSheriff said:


Maybe he has experience getting shot by 30mm and 20mm or .50cals 

 

I have a good deal of firearm experience both inside of the military and outside of it. I am familiar with the effects of shock due to severe trauma. 

 

I'm not suggesting people don't die or pass out from massive trauma due to " getting shot by 30mm and 20mm or .50cals "

 

Let me put it this way. The odds that you are going to experience a shock from severe trauma and black out for a little while and then come-to again to recover your aircraft are very slim. If the injury you have a received is so severe that you instantly pass out, you are gonna stay passed out until you crash or die from blood loss without treatment. For example, a direct hit with a cannon round to the torso. In this case, the game should just treat it as a pilot kill and move on.  

 

The exception to this would be if something strikes the pilot's head hard enough to knock them unconscious which correlates closely to the "blacked out" effect we see in game depicting shock. This would be a fairly rare occurrence as something with significant kinetic energy would need to specifically strike the head hard enough to concuss the brain but not hard enough to kill. This could stay in the game as a potential outcome.

 

What we see currently in game is this "blacked out" effect being attributed to many pilot injuries which are simply shrapnel injury due to close proximity fragmentation or appendage trauma. In this case, a more realistic depiction of the shock effect which is actually experienced would be a narrowing and blurring of vision (other appropriate vision effects could cause motion sickness), loss of precise motor control, and hearing loss/tinnitus. I think it would add far more depth and realism if we portrayed shock as such. 

Edited by SCG_Wulfe
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mostly agree with just learning to fly within the limits we have, and that overall this feature has been a great addition to the game.

 

I think there's enough data previously pointed out to at least consider shortening the length of the blackout to about 3.5 seconds, at least for the rapid onset version. Reduction of g-forces should follow very quickly from rapid onset with unpowered control inputs, as your body is unable to keep applying the force necessary to sustain the g's. Once g-forces are reduced, recovery of consciousness should occur in 3-4 seconds. Right now it feels more like 8-10, although I haven't tested and in MP those seconds sure do feel long...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, 69th_Bazzer said:

I mostly agree with just learning to fly within the limits we have, and that overall this feature has been a great addition to the game.

 

I think there's enough data previously pointed out to at least consider shortening the length of the blackout to about 3.5 seconds, at least for the rapid onset version. Reduction of g-forces should follow very quickly from rapid onset with unpowered control inputs, as your body is unable to keep applying the force necessary to sustain the g's. Once g-forces are reduced, recovery of consciousness should occur in 3-4 seconds. Right now it feels more like 8-10, although I haven't tested and in MP those seconds sure do feel long...

 

I agree. 

There are instances where the pilot is blacked out and the plane is already on a trajectory/vector that increases Gs even with neutral input from the pilot, however. 

I don't know it there are instances where it is possible for a blacked-out person's body/arms/legs to "lock" into the last position it was in before the brain shut off. If, in reality it is, and it's modeled into the game as well, then there is the possibility of the pilot still adding G and being unaware of it. 

 

I've never piloted a real plane or had G blackout but, I've been in situations where I've been knocked out (or nearly) and came back with my body locked (approximately) into the last position it was in before I lost, or nearly lost, consciousness.   

Share this post


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

I've never piloted a real plane or had G blackout but

The modelling in game is based on scientific studies on those who have, so let's go with that? 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

I've never piloted a real plane or had G blackout

 

There is ample video proof that when you GLOC your body goes limp. In fact we jokingly referred to the flailing of arms (during deceleration in the centrifuge) and the head bobbing as "doing the funky chicken."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

The modelling in game is based on scientific studies on those who have, so let's go with that? 

 

I can smell your condescension.  

 

1 minute ago, busdriver said:

 

There is ample video proof that when you GLOC your body goes limp. In fact we jokingly referred to the flailing of arms (during deceleration in the centrifuge) and the head bobbing as "doing the funky chicken."

 

Ok, point taken.  Just because I related my own experience doesn't make the question of "is it possible?" invalid, even for my own learning.  Besides, were any of those centrifuge subjects tasked with doing any significant physical activity other than trying to fight GLOC or where they just strapped in and along for the ride?

 

Share this post


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

Ok, point taken.  Just because I related my own experience doesn't make the question of "is it possible?" invalid, even for my own learning.  Besides, were any of those centrifuge subjects tasked with doing any significant physical activity other than trying to fight GLOC or where they just strapped in and along for the ride?

 

 

Most are totally aware of the g-level they are about to be 'spun-up' to, and are performing hook maneuvers in order to withstand them. There is plenty good videos on Youtube from inside the centrifuges to see what GLOC does.

Share this post


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

 

Most are totally aware of the g-level they are about to be 'spun-up' to, and are performing hook maneuvers in order to withstand them. There is plenty good videos on Youtube from inside the centrifuges to see what GLOC does.

 

I get that.  I was asking if any of these pilots were tasked with doing things like pulling or pushing on a control column that increases resistance as G increases. or >other additional< physical activities besides anti-G maneuvers.  

Share this post


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

I can smell your condescension

Call it what you will, I just prefer empirical, peer reviewed, replicable, historical, professionally produced scientific data over the speculation of someone who confesses they have no experience of the situation they presume to venture an opinion upon. 

 

I'm not sure about you, but for myself I'm interested in experiencing a simulation, and to me that means using the best available contemporary and original data to replicate the performance and experiences we are interested in as well as our models and systems allow us to. Not according to anecdote, nor gut feeling, or even supposition. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Call it what you will, I just prefer empirical, peer reviewed, replicable, historical, professionally produced scientific data over the speculation of someone who confesses they have no experience of the situation they presume to venture an opinion upon. 

 

I'm not sure about you, but for myself I'm interested in experiencing a simulation, and to me that means using the best available contemporary and original data to replicate the performance and experiences we are interested in as well as our models and systems allow us to. Not according to anecdote, nor gut feeling, or even supposition. 

 

So, my wondering if my own experiences with sudden LOC, albeit under different circumstances, might have similar results to other types of LOC onset is reason for being told off as "unscientific supposition"?    

 

First you condescend, then you very cleverly gaslight.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no experience about propeller dogfight/pass out during a flight but in this period I'm playing both BoS and Clod and this is what I noted (just about physiology)

 

In Clod you can pull all G that you want and almost nothing happened to your pilot, I can do 3 loops in a row and I have just small grey vision... But if you try to dive everything become red in a fraction of second...

 

In Bos if you pull up in any moment you risk to wake up in the other world, but 90° dive with stuka doesn't give you any problem...

 

The different betweens both games is so huge that now I'm wondering:

Wich one is more realistic?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

my own experiences

Which are, technically, known as 'anecdotal', and therefore don't add anything to the discussion we are having here. Particularly as you admit that the experiences you had did not take place during circumstances similar to the ones which the devs are modeling using, and I can emphasise this enough, three different contemporary scientific sources. 

 

1 hour ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

gaslight

Now that's just rude. I've not tried to suggest that your own experiences are wrong, or that you are in any way delusional. Just that they are not relevant here. You are not being 'told off' when I say that it's unscientific supposition. It's just a fact. I'm sorry that this appears to upset you. 

 

Edit @Mobile_BBQ, I respect your right to disagree with me, and would defend it to the death, but tossing around accusations like 'gaslighting' really isn't the way that we do things around here. 

 

 

 

Edited by [_FLAPS_]Diggun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, [_FLAPS_]Diggun said:

Which are, technically, known as 'anecdotal', and therefore don't add anything to the discussion we are having here. Particularly as you admit that the experiences you had did not take place during circumstances similar to the ones which the devs are modeling using, and I can emphasise this enough, three different contemporary scientific sources. 

 

Now that's just rude. I've not tried to suggest that your own experiences are wrong, or that you are in any way delusional. Just that they are not relevant here. You are not being 'told off' when I say that it's unscientific supposition. It's just a fact. I'm sorry that this appears to upset you. 

 

Edit @Mobile_BBQ, I respect your right to disagree with me, and would defend it to the death, but tossing around accusations like 'gaslighting' really isn't the way that we do things around here. 

 

 

 

 

Ok.  I'll reiterate what I said and highlight the operative words.  

 

I was >>wondering<<  if the LOC incidents I had experienced and the >>results<< of them  >>ie; being physically locked into the last body/arms/legs position the brain subconsciously remembers<<  >>could possibly be present during the type of LOC being discussed<<.  

 

I wasn't offering my experience as evidence. I was asking if there was possibly other noted evidence in the field of study that might be similar. 

The reason I asked is that if in fact there were recorded cases of this happening during GLOC, then it is possible for the pilot to blackout, yet keep applying G force inducing control inputs despite being unaware of it.  

 

I also wondered if pilots being tested under centrifuge conditions were given other tasks to perform such as pulling or pushing a mock control column and working mock pedals of various, or increasing resistance, or if all the muscle effort they had to exert was internal to the body, ie; anti-G techniques.  

The reason I asked was to find if there's a possibility that externalized physical effort (pushing said mock control column and pedals) could be a factor in the body locking into place during LOC vs. just using internal muscle techniques to only resist the G force with the arms and legs having nothing to do otherwise.

 

I'm willing to bet that the majority or GLOC study falls into the "(1) pilot resists G force only concentrating on internal-to-the-body efforts" category and little of it focuses on "(2) pilot resists G force while concentrating on both internal efforts in addition to external exertion" or "(3) pilot undergoes experiment #2 whilst also being given a visual meter to concentrate on, with a goal to reach based on the externalized effort. ie; keep the instruments (artificial horizon, etc.) within a set range whilst the G force and control resistance increases. 

Hence, the evidence and overall picture of what is really happening could be incomplete. 

 

You assumed from my original post that something I stated as "my experience" should be discredited as anecdotal, when I wasn't offering it for evidence at all. In all probability, I'm not the only one who has experienced this and if so, I thought is was fair to wonder if it could also apply to the subject.

 

My apologies if I failed to make that clear in the first post.  Apparently, I failed to make the intent of my original post comprehensible enough as to what my intended subject was.  

 

Share this post


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

Just because I related my own experience doesn't make the question of "is it possible?" invalid, even for my own learning. 

 

Not intending to pile on...so to speak.

 

Is it possible? I doubt it, but maybe it's possible under some very unique set of circumstances not previously witnessed or recorded in over a quarter of a century of centrifuge training. Part of the profile back in the Jurassic era was to spin up to some moderate g (perhaps 4 ~ 5) look over your shoulder at a digital numeric display and read the number out loud then pulled to max g simulating a break turn. I'm not a medical doctor, but based upon my USAF training I'm under the impression that getting one's bell rung/concussed/knocked out is NOT physiologically the same as or similar to GLOC. GLOC episodes in the centrifuge are not a threat to an aviator's career, getting concussed/knocked out has the potential of ending a career medically.

Share this post


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

 

Not intending to pile on...so to speak.

 

Is it possible? I doubt it, but maybe it's possible under some very unique set of circumstances not previously witnessed or recorded in over a quarter of a century of centrifuge training. Part of the profile back in the Jurassic era was to spin up to some moderate g (perhaps 4 ~ 5) look over your shoulder at a digital numeric display and read the number out loud then pulled to max g simulating a break turn. I'm not a medical doctor, but based upon my USAF training I'm under the impression that getting one's bell rung/concussed/knocked out is NOT physiologically the same as or similar to GLOC. GLOC episodes in the centrifuge are not a threat to an aviator's career, getting concussed/knocked out has the potential of ending a career medically.

 

That is ultimately what I wanted to know and why when you quoted the same part of my original post as Diggun with an actually useful answer, I reacted to you differently than him.

Thank you.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh boy, this horse to beat again, though i cant say if it is alive or dead yet, maybe Schrodinger knows? I'm not going to argue about how the physiology is compared to IRL (as my only qualification to speak on this is having used the Hick-maneuver while on roller coasters), but i think it's fine in-game. Yes i am a primarily Red pilot, but i imagine the waffles have just as much trouble with G-loc since they seem to often go faster.🤷‍♂️

 

On 12/26/2019 at 7:18 PM, ME-BFMasserME262 said:

I just posted something and deleted it. Gonna say it in a different way...

 

People, you really need a G force indicator?

 

I never blacked out in the game, just two times: and it was on purpose, I pulled the stick very, very, hard at high speed to achieve that. But never blacked out in a normal situation.

 

I cant understand how you can black out, I mean, really. Stop pulling hard and that's it, heck, its not that difficult.

 

Actually, it's not difficult at all.

 

Actually... its really easy.

 

As a top-ace player who has 20 AI kills and can almost always land my MiG-3 without prop-striking I'd say we do, but not necessarily a HuD indicator. This has come up before and several people on here stated they'd like some more immersive cues about the rate of G-onset. Yes one can absolutely tell what one's G-onset is just as well by knowing one's airspeed, how much one was already pulling, and how much more one started pulling. Unfortunately i'm not that good yet, and often end up in fights having little idea what my air speed is since i'm looking at the target and not my indicators. Something simple like hearing the pilot gasp for the hick maneuver, or start breathing heavy and adjusting the speed of said audio depending on the G-onset rate would be rather helpful for scrubs like me. If nothing else it'd be a valuable learning tool as I struggle to learn how to dogfight without "just pull harder!"

 

12 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

Not intending to pile on...so to speak.

 

Is it possible? I doubt it, but maybe it's possible under some very unique set of circumstances not previously witnessed or recorded in over a quarter of a century of centrifuge training. Part of the profile back in the Jurassic era was to spin up to some moderate g (perhaps 4 ~ 5) look over your shoulder at a digital numeric display and read the number out loud then pulled to max g simulating a break turn. I'm not a medical doctor, but based upon my USAF training I'm under the impression that getting one's bell rung/concussed/knocked out is NOT physiologically the same as or similar to GLOC. GLOC episodes in the centrifuge are not a threat to an aviator's career, getting concussed/knocked out has the potential of ending a career medically.

 

Loss of consciousness is a pretty broad category, that's why it's literally just loss of consciousness

 

G-loc is pretty consistent, it's a specific loss of consciousness from the brain being starved of oxygen, and the results we've always observed with this has been a relaxation of muscles like you mentioned. 

 

some seizures are another loss of consciousness case where the muscles can do a wide variety of things from spasming to holding their position. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to laugh a little bit. After defending this attribute here, I went down and flew a mission achtung spitfire. I was on a 109 six and went into a massive endless blackout. And I was apparently loud in my protest and frustration since my wife came along and asked whats wrong. 
Talking about meeting oneself in the door. 
But still it was my own wrong doing

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I like the effects however think the black out times have been a little extreme and quick to come on. There is times I know I'm turning hard and riding the edge but it'll start to close up - even if I'm easing off it seems 50/50 if it'll black out.  A G-meter for the non-expert hud might be nice to play around with so I can 'retrain' myself a little better and just help show where things are when it's happening.

Edited by [CPT]HawkeyeP
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about the fact that some aircraft manufacturers (FW in particular) put some efforts in designing the cockpits so that the pilot would have a better position to "counter" to some extent the G effects ?

Was that "taken into account" ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Turban said:

What about the fact that some aircraft manufacturers (FW in particular) put some efforts in designing the cockpits so that the pilot would have a better position to "counter" to some extent the G effects ?

Was that "taken into account" ?

Well it should, like G suits is a factor. But Idk any way to check that 

Share this post


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

What about the fact that some aircraft manufacturers (FW in particular) put some efforts in designing the cockpits so that the pilot would have a better position to "counter" to some extent the G effects ?

Was that "taken into account" ?

Well in not sure if this would be really be a beneficial thing to test.  As a post by @Floppy_Sock says the data shows a spectrum of where that blackout number is.  Now while For say single player a G tolerance stat that changes with experience would be interesting, for multiplayer it can mean an unfair advantage.  I think taking into account the blacking out aspects of say the fw-190 seat position difference may be a factor, but the thing is if we do it with the fw-190 we would need to do it with the other planes as well.  Because at that point the seat becomes part of the plane's design and would need to be modeled. 

 

But at the end of the day it all comes down to what what we feel our pilot should be.  I personally like it where it is since we are taking the role of the average WWII pilot who for the most part did not have G training and also had no missions under their belt.  When we play the game we can develop a feel for when we start to black out which is part of learning the game and is the game's equivalent to developing a tolerance to taking on high Gs.  Looking at how the career mode and everything about the game is framed, the goal of this game is to immerse yourself in WWII air combat so we should have the tolerance of the average recruit pilot. 

 

At the end of the day I think people are used to the older style of blackout and have become accustomed to it.  It is how every game until now has modeled it which means people start to develop a feel for it and once they get to something different, it changes how they have to fly their plane. I think this change brings a lot more of a reality to how WWII planes flew in the air.  I see a TON of people who would complain about various aircraft talking about how x is better than y basing their opinions on the flight simulators they fly.  When in teality things like blacking out were a big factor.  There was the case of a RAF pilot who flew without legs and because of this, his physiology worked different allowing him to pull more Gs than the other pilots making him super deadly in the air.  This suggests that the other pilots were not able to push their planes to their limits.  And given that those planes were spitfires they should theoretically absolutely destroy the 109s with their far superior turning radius and decent power.  But in real life this wasn't the case.  And it is possible that blacking out was a major factor in performance which made fights more balanced.

 

I know listening to the stories from some of the WWII aces that I had met the way that the flying actually occurred was very different that what you see commonly in the multiplayer servers.  The new physiology model seems to have changed the meta a bit so that the flying seems more like the accounts i have listened to and heard about.  But again at the end of the day this is my opinion based off of subjective information and my opinion as to what the game should play like.  Factually i am no more right than someone who wants better G tolerances. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I enjoy these 12g gems note the speed of onset. Even with a  G-suit this a great example of an experienced pilot

 

This guy is an absolute beast. I also believe he is not wearing a g-suit. 

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y9T2HI1eiTA

 

This is guy is an absolute beast of a gripen pilot. There are 4-5 videos of him pulling 9 for 30 secs with no gsuit. His final test goes from 1-9g in about 2 secs and he just holds it.

 

I don’t think most are asking for these exceptional examples but I think it is reasonable to to ask that our pilots are a little better than a civil aviator that spent too much time at McDonald’s.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

I enjoy these 12g gems note the speed of onset. Even with a  G-suit this a great example of an experienced pilot

 

This guy is an absolute beast. I also believe he is not wearing a g-suit. 

 

 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=y9T2HI1eiTA

 

This is guy is an absolute beast of a gripen pilot. There are 4-5 videos of him pulling 9 for 30 secs with no gsuit. His final test goes from 1-9g in about 2 secs and he just holds it.

 

I don’t think most are asking for these exceptional examples but I think it is reasonable to to ask that our pilots are a little better than a civil aviator that spent too much time at McDonald’s.

 

 

 

 

I think he's secretly wearing a monocle 🧐

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Currently it’s either physiology on or off. I think it might be interesting for some to have a slider in settings allowing people/servers to choose where the blackout limit actually is.

Share this post


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

I think it might be interesting for some to have a slider in settings allowing people/servers to choose where the blackout limit actually is.

That is a bad idea as different limits between the servers make flying unpredictable. Rather a fixed value.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also its ww2 mostly LW Versus VVS so they also need to simulate poorly trained and later pilots weakened from lack of proper food and healthcare. 

They had pilots flying with the runs (imagine how that effects your G response) 
They had pilots flying with heart and other medical conditions late in the war or early depending on the nation. 
Some had scrawny malnourished barely 20-25 year olds flying some planes who could barely run once around an oval. 

 

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

They had pilots flying with heart and other medical conditions late in the war or early depending on the nation. 

I have not heard of this. In all the books I read No matter how hard things get, people got washed out for minor issues revealed. Colorblind no chance, poor depth vision you fail, lungs and heart needed to be in good working order. 
Douglas Bader is the only pilot I know of getting to a operational unit, and he really had to fight for it, and he lost his legs when finnish training. And Rudel same lost his foot late war and still flew. But you would not get into training if you where passing mid twenties with a few exceptions. 
After training completed and getting expirienced maybe, but not before

Edited by No.322_LuseKofte

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, Considering that G training wasn't really that prevalent compared to today and the fact that late war there were pilots going into combat with only just over 100 hours of flight experience when some countries were wanting for pilots I think they found a good medium ground.  We obviously are higher tolerances than the rookies that got pushed through training due to needing pilots but not as good as Erich Hartman.  I also like the aspect of straining and your pilot getting tired and it overall has lead to smarter flying doing a lot better over the Insane red tails maneuvers we used to see in every dogfight and that seems to be a good contribution.  Dogfights now play out how they appear in first hand accounts in several books and actual stories I have heard and that is a positive change for a game that strives for realism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I think the effect is good, but a bit overdone.

     The whole thing is a bit murky and depends on a lot of factors that are not modeled and most likely can't be modeled in the game. 

        That's why i think it's a bit over done right now. There are so many things that can affect G resistance and most of them are not even modeled in game, so I think the G tolerance should be increased a bit. Not exaggerated, but increased. 

     Most people here have a hundred times more "virtual flying hours' than experienced ww2 fighter pilots, yet the G tolerance is modeled to the level of novice pilot. i think this is wrong. It should be modeled to the level of experienced fighter pilot.

 

In career G tolerance could be increased as you gain more hours in career, but for online, QMB and everything else, i think G tolerance should be increased to the levels of experienced combat pilots.

 

Those who look at this from the Red vs blue, TnB vs ZnB point of view, are missing the point. Everyone is affected by this equally.

Edited by Jaws2002
  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

I think the effect is good, but a bit overdone.

     The whole thing is a bit murky and depends on a lot of factors that are not modeled and most likely can't be modeled in the game. 

        That's why i think it's a bit over done right now. There are so many things that can affect G resistance and most of them are not even modeled in game, so I think the G tolerance should be increased a bit. Not exaggerated, but increased. 

     Most people here have a hundred times more "virtual flying hours' than experienced ww2 fighter pilots, yet the G tolerance is modeled to the level of novice pilot. i think this is wrong. It should be modeled to the level of experienced fighter pilot.

 

In career G tolerance could be increased as you gain more hours in career, but for online, QMB and everything else, i think G tolerance should be increased to the levels of experienced combat pilots.

 

Those who look at this from the Red vs blue, TnB vs ZnB point of view, are missing the point. Everyone is affected by this equally.

I think this is where the argument really lies.  its not really about what is realistic, but what is preferred.  I like the lower tolerances because the reality is that most people were not ace pilots with hundreds to thousands of combat flight hours.  And I personally want the game to reflect this.  But there is the argument above which is equally as valid which is most people flying in multiplayer have a lot of combat flight experience and are at to WWII ace skill levels.  The G tolerance should reflect that.  Two lines of thinking all based off of opinion.  I really like the idea of having it as a progression stat for SP content like career mode, but the balance could come in  multiplayer where its just at max settings for all servers.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2019 at 8:06 AM, LLv24_Sukka24 said:

F-18 is limited to 7.5G (even less if carrying weapons and external fuel tanks) and has modern G-suit. WW2 planes have no G limitations so of course it's easier to gloc with WW2 planes.

 It also has a switch on the stick that allows the pilot to remove the G limit.

Share this post


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

 It also has a switch on the stick that allows the pilot to remove the G limit.

 

I had no idea American technology was so advanced? Probably back-engineered from all those crashed UfOs...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Jaws2002 said:

I think the effect is good, but a bit overdone.

     The whole thing is a bit murky and depends on a lot of factors that are not modeled and most likely can't be modeled in the game. 

        That's why i think it's a bit over done right now. There are so many things that can affect G resistance and most of them are not even modeled in game, so I think the G tolerance should be increased a bit. Not exaggerated, but increased. 

     Most people here have a hundred times more "virtual flying hours' than experienced ww2 fighter pilots, yet the G tolerance is modeled to the level of novice pilot. i think this is wrong. It should be modeled to the level of experienced fighter pilot.

 

In career G tolerance could be increased as you gain more hours in career, but for online, QMB and everything else, i think G tolerance should be increased to the levels of experienced combat pilots.

 

Those who look at this from the Red vs blue, TnB vs ZnB point of view, are missing the point. Everyone is affected by this equally.

I'm ok with current values but your statement has sense.

Most of us flying il2 like to think of ourself as experienced and capable ww2 pilots so having limits of novice/noob unexperienced pilot is a bit turnoff.

So i totally agree with you and think devs should take that in mind.

 

Thanks for the post, now everytime i blackout i'll curse my noob dandelion avatar pilot!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 1/7/2020 at 9:48 AM, =TBAS=Sschatten14 said:

Also its ww2 mostly LW Versus VVS so they also need to simulate poorly trained and later pilots weakened from lack of proper food and healthcare. 

They had pilots flying with the runs (imagine how that effects your G response) 
They had pilots flying with heart and other medical conditions late in the war or early depending on the nation. 
Some had scrawny malnourished barely 20-25 year olds flying some planes who could barely run once around an oval. 

 

I don't think this is a fair thing to be implemented and can be totally abused by server makers or just players in general. it's a slippery slope to have G effects based on some assumption that a late war German pilot must have a heart condition or an early war soviet pilot was starving. If we open that Pandora's box there would be a litany of thing everyone could argue.

how about German planes in bodenplate can't take over 25% fuel because of shortages? Or all early war laggs have a 25% chance to be overweight due to poor construction? Maybe your late war german pilot has a 25% chance of having a heart attack?  or maybe an engine goes out due to low key forced labor sabotage? 

 

see how that would be very difficult to implement, tedious, or unfair? 

 

also, experienced pilots G effects? was there even much training in this during WWII? and I would believe that different people have different G tolerances based on differences and physiology and maybe a little to do with proper breathing techniques. but you don't just "level up" you G tolerance like its war thunder.   

Edited by gimpy117
  • Like 1

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...