Jump to content
JG7_X-Man

Max G-Force sustained at g-LOC

Recommended Posts

OK - Can we discuss like adults ;)

 

I recorded this from the quick mission. Note: the screenshot was the max g-force sustained.

 

Bf 109K-4

image.png.438b4eee5fc63ef050ddf7c40f4c0135.png 

 

P-51D-15

 image.png.c7481dd3fe29d7b39bad4a60ec2737ca.png  

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


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

And?

 

The P-51 pilot can pull 8Gs vs the 6Gs of the K-4 pilot before blacking out - Is there 1944 data that backs up this difference ? Or an extrapolation based on present day suit data. I did several studies and this varies quite a bit b/w aircrafts. Not asking anyone to divulge any trade secrets - but can I get a general idea why all pilots don't black out at the same G-load? Then the aircraft that have G-suit hard coded, why was this approach taken - verse a mod.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how two screenshots are supposed to verify that, but even if one assumes it is true, do you actually have any evidence that it would be incorrect? Why would the USAAF be issuing G-suits if they had no effect?

Share this post


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

 

Then the aircraft that have G-suit hard coded, why was this approach taken - verse a mod.

 

If you want to treat it as a mod feel free to shut your eyes and let go of your joystick when you think having a g-suit gives you too much of an advantage.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

 

If you want to treat it as a mod feel free to shut your eyes and let go of your joystick when you think having a g-suit gives you too much of an advantage.

 

I guess you didn't see the 1st sentence "OK - Can we discuss like adults"

Share this post


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

 

I guess you didn't see the 1st sentence "OK - Can we discuss like adults"

 

If that was all you posted then I would not have responded.

Share this post


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

 

The P-51 pilot can pull 8Gs vs the 6Gs of the K-4 pilot before blacking out - Is there 1944 data that backs up this difference ? Or an extrapolation based on present day suit data. I did several studies and this varies quite a bit b/w aircrafts. Not asking anyone to divulge any trade secrets - but can I get a general idea why all pilots don't black out at the same G-load? Then the aircraft that have G-suit hard coded, why was this approach taken - verse a mod.

 

Photo is from the book, P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190.  

ww2-g-suit.jpg

 

I think a bigger problem is the lack of negative G-Force, red outs, especially when 109/Spitfire pilots slam their stick forward and they go from 300kph to 100kph in less than 2 seconds without their eyes popping out of their heads.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

I'm not sure how two screenshots are supposed to verify that, but even if one assumes it is true, do you actually have any evidence that it would be incorrect? Why would the USAAF be issuing G-suits if they had no effect?

 

Well some needs to ask the Blue Angels (...because they don't wear them).

 

I read the research article published by NASA: Dressing for Altitude

 

Page 105: 

 

During testing in the Mayo centrifuge, 12 subjects made 320 runs and researchers used visual
symptoms as a subjective measurement and the blood content of the ear and ear pulse as objective measurements. The centrifuge runs lasted
15 seconds with a maximum acceleration of 6-G attained at a rate of 2-G per second. 

 

Any data that is used in this game would have to be based of actual research data - which did not exceed 6Gs.

 

Also - the sounds we here simulated in the game is the "Hook Maneuver" right? The Anti-G Straining Maneuver (AGSM). Performing a isometric strain or tightening of all abdominal and leg muscles, puts muscle pressure on arteries in lower part of the body, minimizing tendency of blood to pool there in high- G maneuver, thus keeping more blood available for eyesight and brain function, and can increase G-tolerance by 1-2 Gs. – Charles Bretana

 

Is this sufficient?

31 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

Photo is from the book, P-51 Mustang vs Fw 190.  

ww2-g-suit.jpg

 

I think a bigger problem is the lack of negative G-Force, red outs, especially when 109/Spitfire pilots slam their stick forward and they go from 300kph to 100kph in less than 2 seconds without their eyes popping out of their heads.

 

Silky - the question isn't whether G-suits were issued or worn. The issue is how and where the developers got the data proving how effective they were in 1944 if the BLUE ANGELS don't wear them today. If we are simulating reality - show me the data that supports a G-3 G-Suit (I think that is what is simulated) can keep a pilot from blacking out up to 8Gs where research by NASA said it was tested for a max of 6Gs.

 

Logic being, if I can gunt to 6Gs, and a G-suit was only tested up to 6Gs, there shouldn't be any advantage from wearing a G-Suit in 1944 - 45.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


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

Silky - the question isn't whether G-suits were issued or worn. The issue is how where is the data proving how effective they were in 1944 if the BLUE ANGELS don't wear them today.

 

The Blue Angels aren't flying in combat.  And they're not flying lots of sustained G''s.  So whether the Blue Angels use G-suits has nothing to do with anything.  

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


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

 

The Blue Angels aren't flying in combat.  And they're not flying lots of sustained G''s.  So whether the Blue Angels use G-suits has nothing to do with anything.  

 

You are speculating.

Share this post


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

 

You are speculating.

 

No, I'm not.  

 

In any case, I'm confident that the devs have researched this.  

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


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

...

Logic being, if I can gunt to 6Gs, and a G-suit was only tested up to 6Gs, there shouldn't be any advantage from wearing a G-Suit in 1944 - 45.

 

There is no 'logic' in that statement at all. The suits were tested at 6G and presumably gave an advantage under those conditions. If they didn't test them at higher G, you can't say one way or another how well they would have worked. Later though, according to the same source you quote, the suits proved their worth in combat:

Quote

The G-3 suit became operational during the fall of 1944, and data soon showed that blackouts and grayouts were happening much less frequently to pilots who wore the suit. None of the safety issues won over pilots but performance data finally did. A P-51 Mustang fighter group of the Eighth Air Force reported that pilots wearing anti-G suits shot down 67 enemy aircraft per 1,000 operational hours, compared with only 33 kills for other pilots. A doubling of the kill rate was persuasive.

 

If you are going to cherry-pick parts of documents you like while ignoring the evidence you don't like, I can see no point in continuing this conversation. As the screenshots you recently posted in another thread show (see here), you are getting wildly different results with your test, (including a 7.9 G reading for a Fw 190 D-9, presumably with no G suit) and nothing I have seen suggests that it is measuring anything much anyway. All you have posted is a couple of TacView screenshots, with no way of telling what was happening to the pilot. A proper test needs to be free from any subjective bias (deliberate or otherwise), and conducted in a way that it can be repeated by others. And needs to be done multiple times on the same aircraft to ensure that it isn't just random variations.

 

Share this post


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

Any data that is used in this game would have to be based of actual research data - which did not exceed 6Gs.

 

Why do they have to use YOUR research data? IAC competitors and airshow pilots routinely go well in excess of 6 g. FWIW this represents 1434 test subjects and GLOC thresholds without g-suits. My own experience at the centrifuge in late 1986 while flying BFM several times a week, gave me a 6 g tolerance without straining (and no g-suit). 

 

1412101089_Annotation2020-01-19003652.jpg.323783108d8adf4f9fb1c2dd9348291e.jpg

 

And there's this bit of data the Devs are aware of...

 

1049329050_Annotation2020-01-1902.thumb.jpg.7daec5db0b62cb21301376a4f3340934.jpg

 

I don't see a huge problem with the current g tolerance. That's all I got.

 

:salute:

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

The G-3 suit became operational during the fall of 1944, and data soon showed that blackouts and grayouts were happening much less frequently to pilots who wore the suit. None of the safety issues won over pilots but performance data finally did. A P-51 Mustang fighter group of the Eighth Air Force reported that pilots wearing anti-G suits shot down 67 enemy aircraft per 1,000 operational hours, compared with only 33 kills for other pilots. A doubling of the kill rate was persuasive.

 

Thank you for bring up that point! I didn't cherry pick it - I wanted you to bring it up.

 

When one wears a G-Suit into battle and get more kills than the day before, the increase in kills cannot be attributed to the G-Suit alone All other factor/variables (....the two issues that make that number suspect here are the skill of the pilots the USAAF were encountering the later days of the war, second the numbers include the over claims on the USAAF side, as there were not that many Luftwaffe aircraft in the air) that must remain constant for this statement to be true.

 

Statistics 101: Correlation ≠ Causality or Correlation does not imply causation  Because I sing when it rains, doesn't mean when I sing it rains.In this case, because I wore a G-Suit and got more kills does not  mean I got more kills because I am wearing a G-Suit.

 

The average flight hours logged by a new Luftwaffe pilot entering combat for
the first time declined from thousands of flight hours before the war and
hundreds of flight hours in 1940 to averages of only 160 hours, 112 hours,
and 80 hours.in 1944
. By February 1945, the flight training hours were zero,
because flight training had ceased.

Towards the end, at least one 17-year old Luftwaffe pilot took to the air in
his Focke-Wulf 190 with only 6 hours of flight training in the air. The bulk
of the flight training was accomplished on the ground to conserve precious
fuel.

 

8 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

Why do they have to use YOUR research data? IAC competitors and airshow pilots routinely go well in excess of 6 g. FWIW this represents 1434 test subjects and GLOC thresholds without g-suits. My own experience at the centrifuge in late 1986 while flying BFM several times a week, gave me a 6 g tolerance without straining (and no g-suit). 

 

1412101089_Annotation2020-01-19003652.jpg.323783108d8adf4f9fb1c2dd9348291e.jpg

 

And there's this bit of data the Devs are aware of...

 

1049329050_Annotation2020-01-1902.thumb.jpg.7daec5db0b62cb21301376a4f3340934.jpg

 

I don't see a huge problem with the current g tolerance. That's all I got.

 

:salute:

 

Good find! My only issue here is the quality of a 1980s G-Suit is far more advanced than the G-3 Suit the USAAF wore at the time - major issue for me is efficiency (...like time to inflate and deflate) come to question. So this  my point - Modern equipment data being used to simulate 1940s tech.

 

For the record - I never said "they" have to use my data - I just want to see some data.

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh joy, another one to add to my ignore list.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't the devs address this already?  I seem to recall my eyes glazing over to pages of research on this at some point.  The devs did research this, they researched the living hell out of it.  This is like asking why does the 262 go so fast and where are the allies jets?  Both sides are not dead equal in all things and that is represented well in this sim.

Share this post


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

Oh joy, another one to add to my ignore list.

 

Yay me! I laid a trap and you took the bait - now you are mad at me :rolleyes:

Edited by JG7_X-Man

Share this post


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

 

When one wears a G-Suit into battle and get more kills than the day before, the increase in kills cannot be attributed to the G-Suit alone All other factor/variables (....the two issues that make that number suspect here are the skill of the pilots the USAAF were encountering the later days of the war, second the numbers include the over claims on the USAAF side, as there were not that many Luftwaffe aircraft in the air) that must remain constant for this statement to be true.

 

Statistics 101: Correlation ≠ Causality or Correlation does not imply causation  Because I sing when it rains, doesn't mean when I sing it rains.In this case, because I wore a G-Suit and got more kills does not  mean I got more kills because I am wearing a G-Suit.

 

If only you could travel back in time and point out basic logical fallacies to analysts of the time. Surely they never thought of this when compiling data.

 

I like how the first assumption when confronted with a new piece of information is that it's biased and wrong and nobody understood causation/correlation back then.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Didn't the devs address this already?  I seem to recall my eyes glazing over to pages of research on this at some point.  The devs did research this, they researched the living hell out of it.  This is like asking why does the 262 go so fast and where are the allies jets?  Both sides are not dead equal in all things and that is represented well in this sim.

 

If you could point me to that post - I'd more than likely be satisfied ;)

 

The 262 has raw data of the period to back it- it's rate of climb, cruise speed, etc... cannot be disputed. Point as which one one pilot can withstand 6G in airplane A where another pilot can't in airplane B is debatable.

18 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

 

If only you could travel back in time and point out basic logical fallacies to analysts of the time. Surely they never thought of this when compiling data.

 

I like how the first assumption when confronted with a new piece of information is that it's biased and wrong and nobody understood causation/correlation back then.

 

 

 

Bingo! Another person that thinks outside the box! I am not saying there shouldn't be a advantage from wearing the G-3 G-Suit at all! I am just saying:

  1. What is the advantage b/w wearing one and not wearing one per WWII aircraft - may I see the data please that supports what we see in game  (I hope it's not present day data using present day technology)
  2.  Why could the G-3 G-Suit not have been a mod to be selectable.

Let's be honest - the premise that everyone that flew a P-51D-15 into combat in WWII wore a G-Suit is flawed!

Edited by JG7_X-Man
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation: "It's not fair that pilots of American planes have a higher G-tolerance, so I therefore I want the G-suit to be a mod. I will then convince server operators to ban the G-suit mod in the interest of fairness and balance."

  • Upvote 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Translation: "It's not fair that pilots of American planes have a higher G-tolerance, so I therefore I want the G-suit to be a mod. I will then convince server operators to ban the G-suit mod in the interest of fairness and balance."

Sounds like this, really 😀

 

PS out of curiousity, what other aircraft are equipped with G suits in IL2?

Edited by Caudron431Rafale

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the devs explanation for the g suit and g effect changes were in one of the dev diaries or update announcements.

Share this post


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

For the record - I never said "they" have to use my data - I just want to see some data.

 

Umm actually you posted...

 

16 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

Any data that is used in this game would have to be based of actual research data - which did not exceed 6Gs.

 

Effectively you posited they have to use YOUR data, as in the data you deem to be a reliable source.

 

4 hours ago, JG7_X-Man said:

My only issue here is the quality of a 1980s G-Suit is far more advanced than the G-3 Suit the USAAF wore at the time - major issue for me is efficiency (...like time to inflate and deflate) come to question. So this  my point - Modern equipment data being used to simulate 1940s tech.

 

Come on, you're sounding like a polemicist. You're honestly going with the premise that 1980s g-suits are some quantum leap in technology over a 1944 g-suit? The Devs have made decisions based upon their interpretation of the information available to them. I offered them my own anecdotal centrifuge experience. Factually, nominal GLOC tolerance was incrementally increased before release. I still hold opinions that conflict slightly with some aspects of their implementation, but I'm comfortable with their efforts. I don't suspect a conspiracy or willful disregard of data to kneecap the Luftwaffe or RAF in BoBP.

 

4 hours ago, SYN_Mike77 said:

Didn't the devs address this already?  I seem to recall my eyes glazing over to pages of research on this at some point. 

 

Yes they did...and I had the same experience. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the chimed in constructively!

 

I have brought this to their attention - if they believe the modeling of g-LOC is fine, it will stay the same. If they deem it needing to be tweaked, they will make it so. :)

Share this post


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

If you could point me to that post - I'd more than likely be satisfied ;)

 

Every new feature receives a comprehensive write up in the Dev Diary.:)   

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Tacview screenshot isn't sufficient evidence honestly. You can look at these flights I made where @Floppy_Sock created great videos with graphical G overlays from the tracks. He's also made a Fw190 example himself. AFAIK The reason the airplanes that have G-suits have them is because historically when those airplanes were in service they were standard issue to the pilot, so there's no need for it to be a modification. The system we have isn't perfect and I don't think we can expect it to be, but I think it has definitely improved people's thinking of how to fly these airplanes when fighting. It rewards smooth flying and punishes rapid ham fisted efforts (which I've been guilty of plenty of times in a Tempest or Spitfire!)

 

Feel free to have a read through the whole "WOW Physiology Thread" though:

 

This folder has 9 videos showing Bf 109, P-51, and Spitfire flight test examples with G forces overlayed.

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

 

Floppy Socks Fw190 example.

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/19/2020 at 6:35 PM, LukeFF said:

Translation: "It's not fair that pilots of American planes have a higher G-tolerance, so I therefore I want the G-suit to be a mod. I will then convince server operators to ban the G-suit mod in the interest of fairness and balance."

 

 

Hum... I think it's a subject that can be discussed without raising the bias alarm straight away.

Especially since I don't see any "American pilot" arguing for FW pilots to get better G tolerance since that was in the Aircraft's design.... How is that for bias..

 

It's quite possible the gain from the suit was only marginal at high Gs and was more designed to help with the mid range Gs that are the most frequent and the most tiresome in a dogfight....Tested/Efficient to 6Gs would make sense, especially since they don't go that much higher even today !

 

And the pilot's position is extremely important when it come to these mid range Gs..

 

Anyway, I don't know, I don't facts, except that nothing's ever perfect including IL2, we all have learned that over the years, so think about it before throwing rotten tomatoes at someone....
 

 

Edited by Turban
Just read a bit...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Turban said:

 

 

Hum... I think it's a subject that can be discussed without raising the bias alarm straight away.

Especially since I don't see any "American pilot" arguing for FW pilots to get better G tolerance since that was in the Aircraft's design.... How is that for bias..

 

It's quite possible the gain from the suit was only marginal at high Gs and was more designed to help with the mid range Gs that are the most frequent and the most tiresome in a dogfight....Tested/Efficient to 6Gs would make sense, especially since they don't go that much higher even today !

 

And the pilot's position is extremely important when it come to these mid range Gs..

 

Anyway, I don't know, I don't facts, except that nothing's ever perfect including IL2, we all have learned that over the years, so think about it before throwing rotten tomatoes at someone....
 

 

The evidence I've seen for the FW-190 being better for G-forces is...slim. Lots of anecdote, and most of the references end up pointing to the F-16, which uses a 30 degree tilted back seat to help with G forces. The sources I've read indicate that the aggressively tilted seat of an F-16 grants approximately 0.5g -0.75g of tolerance. its worth noting that no other modern fighter made since has that aggressive of a tilt - the F-22 has a 22 degree seat.

Here is some interesting reading - the second half of this document discusses G forces for USAAF aircrew in modern jets. 


https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/bbm%3A978-1-4614-3030-8%2F1.pdf

 

Most interesting part of the document for me is here:

7.1. Tolerance. Average aircrew relaxed 0 tolerance in the F-16 seat is about 5.2 G (about .5 to .75G less in aircraft without a reclined seat); the G suit can add another 1G, and a good AGSM can add another 3.5G or more of tolerance. When these are totaled, one can see that 9G is a big challenge for most aircrew; there is little or no safety margin.


So here we see that the biggest factor for G-resistance is not the seat, nor even the G-suit, but the Anti-G Straining Maneuver (AGSM). Which, I am really not sure whether this was systematically trained for and practiced with combat pilots in WWII, but in the memoirs I have read I can't recall reading anything mentioning that.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still. It's better.  Dont see why the P51 would be treated in the most optimistic way and the rest would.

As for pilot not being trained for Gs....of course they were. 

 

 

Anyway. I give up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, =RvE=Windmills said:

How far is the seat tilted back on the 190/109?

 

The effect of seating position on G resistance doesn't just depend on far back the seat is tilted. How high your feet are in relation to your body also matters. Which is why Spitfire rudder pedals had two positions for the feet. The lower one was probably more comfortable in normal flight, but the upper one helped in high-G turns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

I have been inside a Bf109G-6 in FiAF museum. Your legs are quite "level" compared to other planes I have been in. Good comparison would be sitting on an office chair(other planes) vs sitting on the floor on a pillow(Bf109). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I've seen similar statements about the Bf 109 (and the Fw 190) before. What I haven't seen though is any actual data enabling one to make meaningful comparisons between different aircraft. Both the British and the Americans were clearly looking for ways to combat the effects of high G during WW2, and conducted tests. The Germans may have done so too, but if they did, we need more to go on than just assertions that the seating position they used was beneficial. It most likely was, but the IL_2 GB developers would need some actual numbers to work with if they are to take it into account.

 

While looking for more information on G-suit developments, I came across this rather alarming quote:

Quote

I went “out” halfway round a turn at Calshot Castle, and flew completely unconscious at about 500 ft halfway back to Cowes before regaining my senses. Even then there was a very frightening lapse of seconds when one realised one was flying and had been “out”, but still could not see or move one’s hands …..’ In my lapse of consciousness, I dreamt I was sitting in the housemaster’s garden at Oundle in a deck chair … I could see the flowers – and hear the bees – the noise of which got angrier and angrier, until I started to wonder where I had heard that noise before. Then I realised that it was the Napier engine in the S.5 and gradually came the frightening realisation that I was going like a bomb and might expect to hit the water at any second …. I was a very frightened officer!

 

That was RAF pilot Richard Atcherley reporting on a practice run for the 1929 Schneider Trophy. The intention was to turn at about 4-4.5 G for best performance, which was clearly pushing safe limits. Blackouts due to G were clearly something known about well before WW2 then: even WW1 pilots reported loss of vision, though at that time the causal mechanism wasn't understood.  By 1940, systematic research on the effects of G was being conducted by the RAF Physiological Laboratory, and by 1942 the Fleet Air Arm was using the Franks Mk III suit (which was water filled, rather than using compressed air) in trials on Seafires. A quote from Mike Crosley, who flew the Seafire in action against Fw 190s and Bf 109s immediately post D-Day:

Quote

Thanks to my g-suit I remained conscious in the steep pull-out and regained altitude astern of their ar**-end Charlie after all …..

 

In Australia, an air-pressure suit was developed, and was apparently used in action over Darwin, by RAAF Spitfire pilots intercepting the Japanese. The RAF seems not to have been so keen on the G-suit concept though, and apparently forbade their use over enemy territory, due to security fears.  Meanwhile, the USAAF had developed a much more practical system, and presumably saw the benefits as outweighing the security risks. 

 

Quotes etc from here: https://www.aerosociety.com/media/4847/a-brief-history-of-flying-clothing.pdf

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

S! 

 

Modelling the G effect can be a slippery slope. Sure there is a lot of data and all that, but what to use as baseline. And how tie it to the FM? A bug/feature/peculiarity in FM can bork the G modelling and vice versa. 

 

Personally I like the new effect, but at times it feels like it is a bit too sharp. This could of course be because we have no real physical feedback on the forces so it is easy to pull more G than intended or possible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 1/22/2020 at 1:30 PM, AndyJWest said:

 

The effect of seating position on G resistance doesn't just depend on far back the seat is tilted. How high your feet are in relation to your body also matters. Which is why Spitfire rudder pedals had two positions for the feet. The lower one was probably more comfortable in normal flight, but the upper one helped in high-G turns.

 

Indeed this feature was appearantly copied after comparison flights of Hurricance against the 109E in May 1940 which revealed the seating positions importance in increased G resistance.

 

It is regrettable overlook that this feature of increased g resistance is currently only modelled for USAAF aircraft. 

 

 

 

 

 

hurri1092 snap.jpg

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trying to stay unbiased and objective here  - I don't think we've ever seen a more authentic WW2 flying experience. However.. its.. human nature to keep looking for improvement.

 

What seems to be the underlying question is.. could there be a mechanic simulating G tolerance based on the pilot's relative position and not only a mechanic limited to generic pilot physiology and a separate one for G-Suits. However this alone would be a pretty big undertaking.

 

Adding the G-Suit (new feature) understandably has raised questions about how accurate the other factors are in relativity affecting G force. This is just the natural development of the game and with new features like pilot physiology and G-Suits being simulated.. other significant factors in turn are now under more scrutiny. 

 

However we should be thankful for what we have which is already a huge advancement from the past. I don't think we can realistically demand our much overloaded developers to assess this in the short-term (perhaps a consideration for later development).

 

All other human factors being even (pilot general health, weight, fitness level), you could add a factor like:

 

(Generic G-force application x Relative angle of pilot seat to A/C centreline) - G-Suit factor = Applied G force

 

Yes - I've oversimplified but you get the point.

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...