Blackouts

[DD_APHill]

I have to say, at the risk of being flamed, that I think and so do many others that I used to fly this sim with, that the black outs are overdone. They were great at first but they have become for a number of us excessive. 

[busdriver]

No flames from me. It's challenging at 1 g to try and simulate g forces. You're simply going too fast and pulling too hard if you are constantly going to sleep. Perhaps you fly as if the throttle has only one position...full forward to the stop. I reckon that you are now being forced into paying more attention to your energy state and need to learn to modulate your throttle.

 

Overall, I like what the Devs have done. I have minor quibbles based on my Jurassic era experience. Learn not to put yourself to sleep, as in recognize not to snatch on the stick above xxx kph/mph. If being a fighter pilot were easy nobody would want to be one.

Edited January 23, 2020 by busdriver

[Goffik]

Do we really need yet another thread on this subject? 

 

Here is the latest one, containing the exact same arguments that have been made in the last three.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

You need to know that 60 degree bank turn results in 2 G load , this is without pulling the stick , so it's very easy to reach the pilot blocking out region. Entering the loop is done usaly at 4G.

You can fly slower to adapt, in lower speed you can't pull high Gs because the wing will stall and prevent you from blackout

 

Edited January 23, 2020 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[MasserME262]

Luke, we need you....

[Trooper117]

Do the AI suffer from the same problems?... if so, all is equal  

[Yogiflight]

33 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

Do the AI suffer from the same problems?... if so, all is equal  

Yes they do. The problem here in career missions is, when AI fight each other, they rarely ever do hard turns, they usually only do hard turns, when fighting with the player, so the player has to turn hard, too. When now the player fights with the next AI, the player already suffered from the first fight, while the AI, even when it was already fighting, but with an AI, is pretty rested, and so can fly with more Gs than the player. So you have to find work arounds, to be able to turn with your second and third and... AI.

[Georgio]

1 hour ago, Trooper117 said:

Do the AI suffer from the same problems?... if so, all is equal  

 

I've noticed quite a few AI planes auger in while trying to evade. It's strangely satisfying especially if I'm out of ammo...?

[BlitzPig_EL]

"Maneuver kills" are very satisfying.

[Blackhawk_FR]

9 hours ago, DD_APHill said:

I have to say, at the risk of being flamed, that I think and so do many others that I used to fly this sim with, that the black outs are overdone. They were great at first but they have become for a number of us excessive. 

 

"Many others" thinking something doesn't make it a physical/factual truth. 

 

 

5 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

You need to know that 60 degree bank turn results in 2 G load , this is without pulling the stick ,

 

What?? 

Edited January 23, 2020 by F/JG300_Faucon

[sevenless]

3 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

"Maneuver kills" are very satisfying.

 

Yep. Last time with my D-9 I managed to maneuver kill 3 AI-Tempests. All of them obviously blacked out and crashed in the ground without firing a shot. I like it.

Edited January 23, 2020 by sevenless

[SCG_Wulfe]

When it comes to g-force blackouts I don't agree. They are very well implemented and realistic. 

 

However when it comes to injury blackouts, they are completely unrealistic and really messing with the gameplay. 

 

See here for that discussion:

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/57494-blackouts-due-to-shock-need-to-be-re-worked/

Edited January 23, 2020 by SCG_Wulfe

[334th_Hartmann]

I'd actually like the blacking out if it was even for both sides,

i've done a few tests with squad mates flying F4 v Spit MkV in the duel areas of Berloga, 

pretty much going around in a continuous circle, neither plane gaining on each others tail, (strange, as the spit should out turn a 109 right??) and going the same speed, so in my eyes they must be pulling the same g's,

the spitfire is on the edge of blacking out (very small circle in the middle of the screen to see through) but the 109 has barely any greying out...

we've switched planes also to rule out pilot error and its been the same,

doesn't make sense...

 

[Lusekofte]

I can see this feature can be understood as overdone. I never flown heavy G’s myself and I have nothing to compare with. 
Flying the Tempest I get blackout all the time, and I cannot stop it when it starts. Easing the controls do not help once you start going dark grey. But despite Slowly getting my confidence murdered bits by bits I am still ok with it, knowing it act like small effective law enforcement miniature cops against unrealistic maneuvering. 

[busdriver]

30 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

 

i've done a few tests with squad mates flying F4 v Spit MkV in the duel areas of Berloga, 

pretty much going around in a continuous circle, neither plane gaining on each others tail, (strange, as the spit should out turn a 109 right??) and going the same speed, so in my eyes they must be pulling the same g's,

the spitfire is on the edge of blacking out (very small circle in the middle of the screen to see through) but the 109 has barely any greying out...

we've switched planes also to rule out pilot error and its been the same,

doesn't make sense...

 

 

Yeah that always puzzled me as well. Same relative speed, same relative turn circle should require the same relative g.

 

13 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Flying the Tempest I get blackout all the time, and I cannot stop it when it starts. Easing the controls do not help once you start going dark grey.

 

That is one fast machine and I'd guess that the g onset rate is to blame. I've put myself to sleep in the Tempest faster and more often than any other.

Edited January 25, 2020 by busdriver

[Stoopy]

43 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

I'd actually like the blacking out if it was even for both sides,

i've done a few tests with squad mates flying F4 v Spit MkV in the duel areas of Berloga, 

pretty much going around in a continuous circle, neither plane gaining on each others tail, (strange, as the spit should out turn a 109 right??) and going the same speed, so in my eyes they must be pulling the same g's,

the spitfire is on the edge of blacking out (very small circle in the middle of the screen to see through) but the 109 has barely any greying out...

we've switched planes also to rule out pilot error and its been the same,

doesn't make sense...

 

 

So do either of you have TacView so you can record that flight and see what the airspeeds and  G forces are being registered as?

 

[ShamrockOneFive]

1 hour ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

I can see this feature can be understood as overdone. I never flown heavy G’s myself and I have nothing to compare with. 
Flying the Tempest I get blackout all the time, and I cannot stop it when it starts. Easing the controls do not help once you start going dark grey. But despite Slowly getting my confidence murdered bits by bits I am still ok with it, knowing it act like small effective law enforcement miniature cops against unrealistic maneuvering. 

 

Being a bit of a Tempest specialist there are a few key things to keep in mind with the Tempest.

 

1) It's really very fast and that means that you can be going faster than you might think and therefore a turn can introduce a whole lot of G very quickly. Neutral stick won't do.. you'll need to push on the stick to try and get the G forces down sometimes. But gently does it at all times.

2) The Tempest has excellent control even at high speeds. Whereas the Bf109 and some other types tend to stiffen up... the Tempest is more than capable of pulling and pulling hard.

 

At all times you need to be aware of your speed in this fighter and then modulate your control inputs and your overall maneuvering as a result. I've been in some incredibly intense aerial battles recently in the Tempest and at no point did I ever blackout. I rode the edge a bit here and there but you don't need to pull that hard to achieve success. Positioning, planning and fine control definitely do help and it's something to practice and practice (and practice)

[Ribbon]

2 hours ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

I'd actually like the blacking out if it was even for both sides,

i've done a few tests with squad mates flying F4 v Spit MkV in the duel areas of Berloga, 

pretty much going around in a continuous circle, neither plane gaining on each others tail, (strange, as the spit should out turn a 109 right??) and going the same speed, so in my eyes they must be pulling the same g's,

the spitfire is on the edge of blacking out (very small circle in the middle of the screen to see through) but the 109 has barely any greying out...

we've switched planes also to rule out pilot error and its been the same,

doesn't make sense...

 

We did similar test and i can confirm this^^^

Diving in close formation and pulling up, tempest and spit went into blackout while 109k4 didn't.

I attributed that to seating position in 109 but still... 

 

[Barnacles]

10 minutes ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

We did similar test and i can confirm this^^^

Diving in close formation and pulling up, tempest and spit went into blackout while 109k4 didn't.

I attributed that to seating position in 109 but still... 

 

Have you considered the status of the pilots' fatigue. Unless the pilots are both unfatigued your test may not have been completely fair. In general the tempest and spit are exceptionally easy to tire your pilot out owing to the speed of onset of the gs. As the 109 has stiff controls it's a lot easier to ensure the application of G is progressive so preserves your pilot's resilience for longer.

[334th_Hartmann]

7 hours ago, =[TIA]=Stoopy said:

 

So do either of you have TacView so you can record that flight and see what the airspeeds and  G forces are being registered as?

 

Not at the moment but I am going to get it so we can see the exact G forces, 

 

5 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Have you considered the status of the pilots' fatigue. Unless the pilots are both unfatigued your test may not have been completely fair. In general the tempest and spit are exceptionally easy to tire your pilot out owing to the speed of onset of the gs. As the 109 has stiff controls it's a lot easier to ensure the application of G is progressive so preserves your pilot's resilience for longer.

And I know you didn't ask me this but in our test we did it in the duel areas spawning opposite each other and then heading straight to the deck so fatigue levels should be exactly the same. 

 

I must say I enjoy flying both red and blue, and it's is definately noticeable to me that you can pull more g's in a 109 and fw than you can in red fighters, 

 

The "supposedly" better elevator responses and turn rates of red aircraft would explain this sure, 

But if you're

able to turn fight comfortably and even get inside these red aircraft with barely any sign of greying out, then there is definately something wrong. 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by 334th_Hartmann

[Ribbon]

6 hours ago, 71st_AH_Barnacles said:

Have you considered the status of the pilots' fatigue. Unless the pilots are both unfatigued your test may not have been completely fair. In general the tempest and spit are exceptionally easy to tire your pilot out owing to the speed of onset of the gs. As the 109 has stiff controls it's a lot easier to ensure the application of G is progressive so preserves your pilot's resilience for longer.

Spawned together and flying straight into formation to perform test so fatique was aprox equal.

[Bremspropeller]

I'm wondering if g induced by pitch-rate is modelled. That would be dependant, too, on the center of gravity (around which the aircraft pitches) and thus your fuel-state.

No idea if the game is playing around with this, but IRL (especially with jets) it could add significantly to the actual gs the pilots feels.

The effect of WW2 props shouldn't be all too great, but then stacking up single factors (including seating-position), it could very well make the difference between a full-blown tunnel and seeing normally. Especially when talking pitch-rate (onset-rate) induced greyouts.

 

To give some perspective:

An actual legacy F/A-18 can produce pitch-rates of around 40°/s, which can grey-out the pilot. Mind you this happens significantly below corner-speed and effects (actual g and pitch-rate g) might stack up on each other.

[HR_Tumu]

Thx  334

 

Here on forums " feelings" are denominated....  but feelings exists and many times are a fast and unreasonable knowledge about something. Anyway i dont want go to debate it.

 

Based on your test i can "confirm" my feelings, and feelings of amount of vvs players. Bfs have better G tolerance...  and this is very noticiable.. 

Here i think is important comment, i complained about this best g tolerance for bf109 pilots, i was playing in berloga or something like this, and some test pilots answered me they dont aprecciate this...  at the end my conclusion was some test pilots , need fly a lot more red planes.

 
And i can imagine some of yours tell me, best tolerance are result of a special postion of legs on 109 cockpit  ( similar solution was adopted to mig3 ) made the difference... but 

how many improves it?  and on terms of playability... result is , if you fly a yak 1 and 109 take your tail... you have a very poor chances, and all depends of low skill of your enemy.

 

For me G tolerance is a great addition to game, no doubt, im only dislike a bit for better g-tolerance for bf109 pilot, i doubt IRL this little diference , becomes so crucial, like now is on game. 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

I'm wondering if g induced by pitch-rate is modelled. That would be dependant, too, on the center of gravity (around which the aircraft pitches) and thus your fuel-state.

 

I can't image otherways. Speaking about Gs there is no uniform G force acrros whole plane, each plane part are subject to other overloads. For example in one manouver uper wings can be subjected to 6G in same time lower wing had 2 G and center of gravity coud be at 4 G - this shoud be close to pilot seat, so he would feel 4 Gs on his body.

[Bremspropeller]

That's not what I mean.

What I mean is the longitudinal distance between the pilot ant the center of gravity about which the airplane rotates.

The farther aft the pilot, the more a pitch-up will alleviate positive g-effects during the pitch. The closer he sits to the CoG (or even if he sits in front of it), the more g will be felt by pitching up alone, without the airplane's velocity-vector doing anything yet.

[kendo]

12 hours ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

I'd actually like the blacking out if it was even for both sides,

i've done a few tests with squad mates flying F4 v Spit MkV in the duel areas of Berloga, 

pretty much going around in a continuous circle, neither plane gaining on each others tail, (strange, as the spit should out turn a 109 right??) and going the same speed, so in my eyes they must be pulling the same g's,

the spitfire is on the edge of blacking out (very small circle in the middle of the screen to see through) but the 109 has barely any greying out...

we've switched planes also to rule out pilot error and its been the same,

doesn't make sense...

 

 

As others have commented, it may be that they are modelling the effect of the slightly improved seating position in the 109s. Some questions were asked before as to whether the G-effects model in il2-BoX would model this, and I don't recall any specific response from the devs on the issue, but if it is done then kudos to them. (If it isn't that then it must be a bug...)

 

Found this thread from DCS forum a few years back covering the same territory. (Warning - it goes down the rabbit hole fairly quickly.)

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=147423

[AndyJWest]

A document I found on research into G tolerance from 1986 cites earlier research to suggest that a posture having the pilots feet higher doesn't make any real difference, though I'm not entirely sure I understand all the details:

Quote

Burton et al. (12) reported no G benefit in "relaxed" GOR and ROR tolerances in elevating the heel line to 5 cm below the seat pan, as compared with heels on the floor of the centrifuge gondola with seat back angles of 23° and 28°. Voge (30) found that the position of the lower legs, whether vertical (on the floor) or elevated to 115° from the vertical, made no significant difference in relaxed G tolerances at 45° and 75° seat back angles

 

BURTON RR. A conceptual model for predicting pilot group G tolerance for tactical fighter aircraft. Aviation, Space. and Environmental Medicine. August, 1986

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/adb7/c394744ac433f9e196bf9d859b088c1a1dbb.pdf (see P. 738)

[Trooper117]

I'm sure I read an RAF report a few years ago stating that 'shorter stocky type men' could withstand the effects of 'G' better than their taller counterparts...

So, can I have a short stocky pilot please Jason!   

[AndyJWest]

25 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I'm sure I read an RAF report a few years ago stating that 'shorter stocky type men' could withstand the effects of 'G' better than their taller counterparts...

So, can I have a short stocky pilot please Jason!   

 

From what I can figure out from the research I linked above, the critical thing seems to be the vertical distance between your heart and your brain. What you need is a pilot with no neck. ?

[Barnacles]

5 hours ago, EAF_Ribbon said:

Spawned together and flying straight into formation to perform test so fatique was aprox equal.

That's interesting, because I've felt that the spit V blacks out easier compared to eg 109s an certain stock manoeuvres myself (note this was definitely a 'gut feeling') and I've dismissed it as me misjudging how severe each manoeuvre was. (Ie in a spit, a turn feels 'effortless' compared to a 109 so it seems that one's doing a far less severe (high G) turn). If also heard people who generally fly German planes complaining that RAF or VVS planes are turning inside whilst they're blacking out, and dismissed that as the same.

But several people have done one of your tests and came to your conclusions so I'm thinking there's something in it. Odd.

 

[=FEW=fernando11]

I wonder how many of you doing test are using tackview to actually find out the amount of Gs each plane is doing?

 

I'm not complaining. I'm too lazy to do it myself.

But wouldn't it save all of us of the "feelings", and "I think" arguments?

[Ribbon]

1 hour ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

I wonder how many of you doing test are using tackview to actually find out the amount of Gs each plane is doing?

 

I'm not complaining. I'm too lazy to do it myself.

But wouldn't it save all of us of the "feelings", and "I think" arguments?

I don't have tacview, test were simply done by formation flying performing same maneuvers with result of 109's higher G tolerance.

Didn't want to complain before as we don't know what factors were included in G system and on base of 2 short tests.

 

Bigger difference was in Tempest vs. 109, also in formation flying (dive/pull up) but again why to complain as it can be that tempest pilot pulled a bit faster even it was formation flying and 109 was following on it's tail....maybe control stiffnes helped 109 to avoid blackout.

[334th_Hartmann]

1 hour ago, =FEW=fernando11 said:

I wonder how many of you doing test are using tackview to actually find out the amount of Gs each plane is doing?

 

I'm not complaining. I'm too lazy to do it myself.

But wouldn't it save all of us of the "feelings", and "I think" arguments?

TacView will definately help this yes, but if the two aircraft are on the deck, in a sustained turn, circling around and around for a few minutes, neither gaining on each others tail, doing the same speed, they have to be pulling the same G's or there abouts, 

Fact is the spit is blacking out whilst the 109 is not, 

If this is due to 109 seat position then its another advantage the blues have as well as the stabilizer exploit,

Turn fights are pointless for a red, 

It seems the only hope you have these days is taking an La5 and flying in straight lines boom and zoom

 

 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

42 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

Fact is the spit is blacking out whilst the 109 is not, 

If this is due to 109 seat position then its another advantage the blues have as well as the stabilizer exploit,

Turn fights are pointless for a red, 

It seems the only hope you have these days is taking an La5 and flying in straight lines boom and zoom

 

 

 

Well, if you're not using the rudder to augment the turns and just banking and pulling the stick back, the Spitty is going to blackout easily.  I suspect that a lot of pilots complaining about blackouts coming on so soon are under-rating the YAW axis in their maneuvers and over-banking the plane to achieve the same turn rate by pulling on the stick.  A.K.A. - Johnny can't dance. 

 

I've tried the "stabilizer exploit" in the 109 and 190.  It's actually better and much more stable to use the stabilizer axis separate from the control column pitch instead of double-binding the axis.  A.K.A. - It works better as it was IRL designed to be operated.  

 

A few updates ago, Allied planes were finally given the option to have their trimmers set to an axis as well, except for planes like the Pe-2 which has it's trim controls operated by rocker switches.  There's no reason Allies can't double-bind pitch trim to the control column pitch except for the same reason as why not to do it in a 109 or 190:  Without a near-impossible feather touch,  the plane becomes a bucking bronco.  

 

As far a pure turn fights go, it's probably just a bad idea anyway.  There's a big difference between unrealistically pinpoint-turning around each other and an imaginary fixed point in the sky and doing a more realistic "running fight" with some heavy turning involved.   I think that the blackout system demonstrates this clearly.   

 

The only thing I'm currently not sure about it the idea that has recently been put forth amongst my TeamSpeak friends that it is nearly impossible to make the 110s in-game stall. 

I've seen firsthand many times that if a pure turn fight comes about, there isn't an Allied plane - except maybe the Spitfire - that can out turn it.  Yaks and I-16s within their best turning speed ranges certainly can't and are going too fast to not overshoot anyway. Fly either of those planes too slow and try a max-performance turn, and congratulations! You now have a prop-driven brick that can't work in the vertical either.  Meanwhile, the 110 is a good 30kph slower than that critical speed and also turning (in the horizontal) like it could afford to lose even another 30kph.   

 

Edited January 25, 2020 by Mobile_BBQ

[-SF-Disarray]

I have tacview and will do the requested test in a little bit.

[334th_Hartmann]

26 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Well, if you're not using the rudder to augment the turns and just banking and pulling the stick back, the Spitty is going to blackout easily.  I suspect that a lot of pilots complaining about blackouts coming on so soon are under-rating the YAW axis in their maneuvers and over-banking the plane to achieve the same turn rate by pulling on the stick.  A.K.A. - Johnny can't dance.

For the test we performed, rudder wasn't used in the turn for either the spit or 109 so it makes no difference, the g's in the turn are the same. 

 

28 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

I've tried the "stabilizer exploit" in the 109 and 190.  It's actually better and much more stable to use the stabilizer axis separate from the control column pitch instead of double-binding the axis.  A.K.A. - It works better as it was IRL designed to be operated.

And this might be your experience with the exploit, but those who have mastered it are virtually unbeatable, 

I think part of the problem is the elevator authority still achieved at high speeds along with the stabilizer

34 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

The only thing I'm currently not sure about it the idea that has recently been put forth amongst my TeamSpeak friends that it is nearly impossible to make the 110s in-game stall. 

I've seen firsthand many times that if a pure turn fight comes about, there isn't an Allied plane - except maybe the Spitfire - that can out turn it.  Yaks and I-16s within their best turning speed ranges certainly can't and are going too fast to not overshoot anyway. Fly either of those planes too slow and try a max-performance turn, and congratulations! You now have a prop-driven brick that can't work in the vertical either.  Meanwhile, the 110 is a good 30kph slower than that critical speed and also turning (in the horizontal) like it could afford to lose even another 30kph.

This we can definately both agree on, my experience with the 109 is that it is fairly hard to stall also, it maintains speed in sustained turns really well also

 

25 minutes ago, -SF-Disarray said:

I have tacview and will do the requested test in a little bit.

Look forward to seeing your results

[SCG_Syn]

Its not so much the black outs but the stupid damage modeling of pilots. If you get hit your disabled for 10-20 seconds sometimes. Its not enjoyable nor realistic at all.

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

3 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

For the test we performed, rudder wasn't used in the turn for either the spit or 109 so it makes no difference, the g's in the turn are the same. 

 

Then were the static pitch rates identical as well?  ie;  If both planes were stationary and rotating on the pitch axis, are the degrees per second the same?

 

3 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

And this might be your experience with the exploit, but those who have mastered it are virtually unbeatable, 

I think part of the problem is the elevator authority still achieved at high speeds along with the stabilizer.

 

The problem I see with that is the faster you go, the more you have to push the stick forward to keep the plane level.  At a certain point pushing forward 100% in a dive won't prevent the plane from pulling up on it's own. The amount you need to push is all dependent on speed.  Even if you have a physical trim setting for the joystick itself, it still would need to be adjusted on-the-fly.  Either that or the player's going to have a god-like forearm.  

 

3 minutes ago, 334th_Hartmann said:

This we can definately both agree on, my experience with the 109 is that it is fairly hard to stall also, it maintains speed in sustained turns really well also

 

 Well vs. Yaks and some other VVS planes (including the I-16), the 109 does turn better at near-stall speeds, gets out-turned in low-medium speeds and again is superior in high speeds.  

[334th_Hartmann]

6 minutes ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Then were the static pitch rates identical as well?  ie;  If both planes were stationary and rotating on the pitch axis, are the degrees per second the same

No idea to be honest mate, I can see your reason for questioning though, would the cog points (I'm guessing this is the pitch axis you refer to?) for a 109 and Spit be that much different to effect G's that much? All I know is both aircraft were in the same turn circle, at the same speed, so my thinking was that they should surely be pulling the same. G's? Or is this assumption wrong? 

 

19 minutes ago, SCG_Sinerox said:

Its not so much the black outs but the stupid damage modeling of pilots. If you get hit your disabled for 10-20 seconds sometimes. Its not enjoyable nor realistic at all.

I agree, I would rather be player killed instead of having the false hope of coming to and recovering your aircraft ?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

I'm not too sure as well, but it seems to me that the pilot's seat in relation to the plane's center of gravity and center of lift would be a factor.  Both planes do seem to have similar pilot seat positioning - with the exception of the 109 seat having a bit of "tilt".   

But, so does a Yak-7.  IIRC, the Yak-7 had higher reports of earlier pilot greyouts/blackouts than other comparable Yak models.  My guess is that it has to do not only with having a slightly higher average speed, but also the elongated fuselage possibly giving it a slightly faster pitch rate. 

The Spitfire isn't necessarily elongated, but the elevator authority definitely falls into the range of "almost too strong" vs. the 109's "very good". 

Even if you look at a modern-ish fighter like an F-16, the pilot sits well-ahead of the CoG and CoL. It appears to me that there would actually be a sort of "lever and fulcrum" effect on the pilot area giving slightly higher Gs to that area of the plane vs. its center.  I could have that reversed though.  If I find out different, I will correct it.