g-LOC Effects - Can we see data please

[JG7_X-Man]

This game is truly fun! The developers have done and amazing job trying to recreate what it was like to fly a WWI and WWII aircraft in combat.

 

However, I am not quite sold on the logic behind hard coding a "article of clothing" a person is wearing into the flight model of a specific aircraft (...a G-suit).

Here are my reasons:

• Human physique plays a major a role in g-force different tolerances. Fact: a pilot with a smaller body mass has a shorter distance blood has to travel between the heart and brain, making it easier for them to counteract the G-forces. It was said that JG26's Group Commander Josef "Pips" Priller could do some amazing things in a Fw 190 - My guess it maybe in part due to his size LOL
• g-tolerance also depends pilot posture - let's look at a blueprints of my favorite riverly of the Air War over Europe: The P-51D vs Fw 190D-9

            Note: Fw 190D-9's pilot is angles back further back compared to the P-51D. This means aP-51D pilot (without a G-suit) of equal body physique under the same conditions would suffer g-                          LOC before the Fw 190D-9 pilot.

P-51 (A/D)

 

That said, it's my opinion that if g-LOC was correctly modeled, The P-51D pilot (wearing a G-Suit) would have a marginal higher g-LOC tolerance over the Fw 190D-9 pilot. This is because the Fw 190D-9 was already configured to reduce some g-force effects. Granted the G-Suit is still worn today, it's world's apart from that was worn in 'late 44 - mid '45.

 

If the developers wanted to do this right, it would be like the Fuel Regulating Valve in the Me 262. Why? because like some came with it, some didn't. Like the G-Suit some wore it, some didn't like it. Thus it should be a mod.

 

SInce the level of complexity of IL-2 Great Battles is nowhere close to the complexities of X-Plane 11(with it's Blade Element Theory and all), my guess is some ratio is used to simulate when g-LOC starts to set in - that number needs to be tweaked in the least.

 

I still like your product - it just need a tad tweaking for it to be fun "online" for all.

[Lusekofte]

1 hour ago, JG7_X-Man said:

it just need a tad tweaking for it to be fun "online" for all.

Priceless. 
 

There are no consensus in what we like, whats fun, or whats right. 
 

There are as many opinions as members here. 
I advice you to fly within the limits we all have. 
There are many things needed changing. In my opinion this is not the first priority

[Creep]

I too wish that the g suit would have been a load out option rather than a hard-coded variable set for each airframe.

[JG7_X-Man]

Fun Fact #1 - Blue Angels demonstration pilots combat G-forces with muscle contractions only!

Fun Fact #2 - there was a 6 second delay before the 1944 G-Suit was actually fully inflated??? Was this implemented too in the game?

 

Maybe one of the reasons the Luftwaffe didn't deem them useful for the aircraft of the period? In addition to the inclined sitting position of German fighter aircraft - they were good.

 

Developers - Can someone answer this question please - not as a joke either!

• Can we definitely say that the amount of g-force it takes an average human not wearing a standardized US issued 1944 G-Suit to blackout has been calculated for every single aircraft in this game?
• Can we definitely say that the amount of g-force it takes an average human that is wearing a standardized US issued 1944 G-Suit to blackout has been calculated for every single aircraft in this game?

If the answer to any of these questions are no - why would we want some guess (...we can't even call it an educated guess because there are other variables to consider - like seating position which has been already discussed) implemented into this "WW2 flight sim"? Though premise may be right, the desired effect is incorrect to some degree. 

 

If the variable b/w how many Gs a pilot can tolerate with/without a standard USAAF 1944 G-Suit cannot be calculated accurately and as historic as possible - why not make it a constant like before?

 

To be honest - I would be OK with the notion that a USAAF pilot (wearing a 1944 issue G-Suit) could withstand ≈.5 Gs more than any Luftwaffe pilot. However, without the numbers to validate this - the implementation of the variability of this effect is over exaggerated.

 

Second - as RAF, RCAF and SAAF pilots flew the P-51D, this should be a MOD available only to USAAF pilots (and not hard coded into the aircraft themselves). Only the USAAF made this standard issue late '44.

On 1/4/2020 at 3:35 PM, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Priceless. 
 

There are no consensus in what we like, whats fun, or whats right. 
 

There are as many opinions as members here. 
I advice you to fly within the limits we all have. 
There are many things needed changing. In my opinion this is not the first priority

 

Correct! It's fun for you to shoot me down during a dogfight were I erroneous blackout under lower g-forces than which were historically accurate!

Using 2019 data to simulate 1944 technology is always fun! 

Edited January 12, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

On 1/4/2020 at 3:42 PM, QB.Creep said:

I too wish that the g suit would have been a load out option rather than a hard-coded variable set for each airframe.

 

I'd also be all for it but, it looks to me that it would spark a campaign to get MP servers to lock out G-suits for planes that have them. 

[Angus]

G suits? ...... the idea may not be bad, but there are enough other priorities or problems to be solved ....... in 5 years it may be possible

I would not worry about it beforehand

[JG7_X-Man]

On 1/4/2020 at 3:35 PM, 216th_LuseKofte said:

Priceless. 
 

There are no consensus in what we like, whats fun, or whats right. 
 

There are as many opinions as members here. 
I advice you to fly within the limits we all have. 
There are many things needed changing. In my opinion this is not the first priority

 

let's look at seating position of the P-51.

 

 

Fw 190D

 

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[messsucher]

Was not aware of these sitting position effects on resisting blackouts, but it seems they are a major thing.

 

Since I am HC simmer I would want pilots to be simmed too. Some people can be more resistant to blackouts than some other people, and there is for sure research about that. This would mean in combat terms a little bit of realistic variety in how certain maneuvers end in this game. I know this would not be liked and especially those who get shot down would be terribly enraged.

[JG7_X-Man]

Pilot seating position for the Hurricane:

 

Bf 109E

 

Edited September 28, 2020 by JG7_X-Man

[JG7_X-Man]

 

[Honza]

Didnt german pilots had chute on back? That would negate angle and only legs angle would be difference and that difference is quite below half a G. 

[Barnacles]

1 hour ago, =DMD=Honza said:

Didnt german pilots had chute on back? That would negate angle and only legs angle would be difference and that difference is quite below half a G. 

Here's an image where the hurricane pilot's got his feet on the upper footrests, and the 109 pilot's not got his head through where the headrest would be.

Total BS I know. Whoever drew the stickmen had an agenda (I'm pretty sure that the IRL 109 by all accounts feels more recumbent than a hurricane) but it shows it's actually a lot closer than the chat about Uber advantage suggests.

Edited October 6, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles

[JG7_X-Man]

10 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Here's an image where the hurricane pilot's got his feet on the upper footrests, and the 109 pilot's not got his head through where the headrest would be.

Total BS I know. Whoever drew the stickmen had an agenda (I'm pretty sure that the IRL 109 by all accounts feels more recumbent than a hurricane) but it shows it's actually a lot closer than the chat about Uber advantage suggests.

 

The guy said that he sat in a more inclined angle in the 109 verses the Hurricane. Nice try to contradict that actual test pilot.

[Barnacles]

2 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

The guy said that he sat in a more inclined angle in the 109 verses the Hurricane. Nice try to contradict that actual test pilot.

What, where, who?

[JG7_X-Man]

15 minutes ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

What, where, who?

 

read the initial post above and here is the snippet.

 

[Barnacles]

16 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

read the initial post above and here is the snippet.

 

And I said..

45 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

(I'm pretty sure that the IRL 109 by all accounts feels more recumbent than a hurricane)

Which doesn't contradict that at all.

 

And I didn't draw the technical drawings of the aircraft. I suppose they do contradict the test pilot as the hurricane has an 18 degree slope and the 109 has a 13 degree slope. The models are different though (that's a hurri ii and the test is a hurri I v a 109 e) and maybe the two level rudder pedals were something implemented as a result of this test you reference in your op

Edited October 6, 2020 by 71st_AH_Barnacles