Controversy regarding g-force, spotting, stamina

[THERION]

Dear fellows,

 

It has been written a lot about "spotting / spotting issues", "G-force / blackouts / red outs" and "physical strength / stamina" in different topics and different forums.

So, sorry, if I open a new one about these matters. But my intention for this one has a different approach. Let me explain:

 

Like all of you, I share the same passion and I've been into flight simulations since the early 90s. I got hooked right away and shelled out a considerable amount of

money for hardware/devices from the beginning (Thrustmasters FCS, WCS and Rudder pedal - bloody expensive at the time). So regarding this, I'm an old stager,

but:

- I'm not a scientist

- I'm not a RL pilot

- I've never flown an airplane myself

 

Now, back on topic. I read so much about what is done well in our sim and what not. Very often I've got the impression that everybody contributing comments on

these matters a professionals, which of course, is nonsense. On the other hand I know that some of us fellows actually have a PPL, are even professionals and

some eventually have active military flight experience.

 

So, keeping the focus on those real professionals, I would be very pleased to invite them to share their experience and impression from RL and compare it with

our simulation. For me this would be most interesting - I hope for others too - to read and learn, what professionals think about these 3 matters:

 

- What is well done / implemented or not (with view of our technical limitations)

- What is completely overdone / omitted 

- What is your general opinion

 

And please, let us concentrate on IL2 Great Battles Series and these matter mentioned in the title - this is not about eye candy, not about DM nor about ballistics.

 

Thank you for taking your time and for your contribution.

 

Cheers

 

[Goffik]

I like the idea but the reality is that you're not going to be able to restrict this thread to "professionals", nor will you be able to prove people have the "qualifications" they claim to have. The moment people read opinions they don't agree with, whether they have real-world experience or not, they will feel the need to respond in order to have their say. They won't like the idea of the devs using this thread as official feedback and doing something they don't want done.

 

As an aside, I also don't really think it's right to try and restrict the thread in this way. Professionals or not, this is just a game which we've all paid to play. I think that gives us all a right to have our opinions heard on what we want to see added, removed or changed, regardless of our academic qualifications or real-world experience.

Edited January 25, 2020 by Goffik

[THERION]

1 hour ago, Goffik said:

I like the idea but the reality is that you're not going to be able to restrict this thread to "professionals", nor will you be able to prove people have the "qualifications" they claim to have. The moment people read opinions they don't agree with, whether they have real-world experience or not, they will feel the need to respond in order to have their say. They won't like the idea of the devs using this thread as official feedback and doing something they don't want done.

 

As an aside, I also don't really think it's right to try and restrict the thread in this way. Professionals or not, this is just a game which we've all paid to play. I think that gives us all a right to have our opinions heard on what we want to see added, removed or changed, regardless of our academic qualifications or real-world experience.

 

It was never my intention to restrict this thread, no. But I invite the professionals primarily to participate - if someone else wants to make some sensible comments, no problem.

And my intention with this is of pure interest, I do not intend to "manipulate" or influence the devs by no means - they also have professionals. It's just that I'm wondering what

RL pilots think about it. I don't care about the virtual pilots thinking of 10 g of gravity force should be realistic in a dog fight.

[SCG_motoadve]

I fly real planes and a military warbird trainer, I posted on all the threads about G forces and my opinion is that its really well done.

IRL you cannot abuse your body and airplane with no consequences as it used to be before the addition of pilot physiology.

Makes the game much  more realistic and interesting now.

 

This is are not aerobatic airplanes made out of carbon fiber, this are heavy planes , go faster than aerobatic airplanes and in combat you are not anticipating your moves like in an aerobatic routine, and that does make a big difference on resistance to G forces.

 

Some people dont like it because it affected their style and probably are blacking out and crashing, so they want changes.

I say its almost the same for everyone (except G suits which is fine) please learn to adapt, this is much more realistic and gratifying, makes you think like a real pilot when flying.

 

Also I think the vast majority like they way it is.

 

Please developers ,DO NOT CHANGE IT you guys got it real good, congratulations.

 

[DD_Arthur]

37 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Some people dont like it because it affected their style and probably are blacking out and crashing, so they want changes.

I say its almost the same for everyone (except G suits which is fine) please learn to adapt, this is much more realistic and gratifying, makes you think like a real pilot when flying.

 

Also I think the vast majority like they way it is.

 

Please developers ,DO NOT CHANGE IT you guys got it real good, congratulations.

 

 

Agree with this very much.  

 

It's just a matter of adapting your flying style to new and imho,  more realistic circustances.     It's not difficult.  It's a matter of remembering that whatever or whoever you're flying against is having to cope with the same forces and......the throttle goes both ways 

[SCG_motoadve]

Also if you add Simshaker with Buttkicker or Jetaseat you can get feedback from G forces and they do work real good, helps prevent blacking out.

[THERION]

41 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Some people dont like it because it affected their style and probably are blacking out and crashing, so they want changes.

I say its almost the same for everyone (except G suits which is fine) please learn to adapt, this is much more realistic and gratifying, makes you think like a real pilot when flying.

 

 

That's what I always thought. I remember the manoeuvres and aerobatics some people did on BERLOGA and I was always thinking that this might be a bit unrealistic,

although as already stated, I never flew an airplane in my life (as passenger yes). And now it seems way more realistic to me.

[SCG_motoadve]

Just now, -=-THERION said:

 

That's what I always thought. I remember the manoeuvres and aerobatics some people did on BERLOGA and I was always thinking that this might be a bit unrealistic,

although as already stated, I never flew an airplane in my life (as passenger yes). And now it seems way more realistic to me.

Exactly the same feeling , when I saw those maneuvers in Berloga, super human and totally unrealistic, was a huge turn off.

Now is so much better.

[THERION]

3 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Also if you add Simshaker with Buttkicker or Jetaseat you can get feedback from G forces and they do work real good, helps prevent blacking out.

 

I think you saw my first impression I wrote concerning the use of my Gametrix (Jetseat) - it really helps to prevent extreme manoeuvres leading into blackouts.

And besides of being very immersive, I get the feeling of a better handling of my plane. And now, one can observe much more fighters crashing into the ground

on BERLOGA without any previous inflicted damage, which is a good thing too.

[busdriver]

5 hours ago, -=-THERION said:

- What is well done / implemented or not (with view of our technical limitations)

- What is completely overdone / omitted 

- What is your general opinion

 

I'm an old fart, it has been just over 30 years since I pulled 9g in an airplane, and 33 years since I "experienced" the centrifuge. These days I get about 80+ hours a year in under powered taildraggers towing gliders and such.

 

Generally I like the GLOC threshold and its duration (seems to be predicated on g onset and max g). My quibble is with progressively decreasing g tolerance or "stamina." My perception is that after pulling some unspecified g (say 5g for example) there is some unspecified time required to fly around at 1g in order to reset the player's g tolerance. My sense is this decreasing g tolerance is over-modeled. What's my basis for that opinion? When we flew a RL basic range ride, fly a 30 minute low level route then drop bombs on a controlled range, we made 6 bomb passes and 2 strafe passes with the recovery/pull off target using at least a 4g pull. HUD tape typically showed guys pulled closer to 5g. I never felt any sense of decreased g tolerance on the range.

 

When we flew a basic BFM sortie we pulled lots of g for a couple of minutes and then reset the starting conditions (wash, rinse, repeat) maybe 6 times typically. Sometimes resetting the starting conditions required some maneuvering/cruising to get re-positioned within the confines of the MOA (military operating area)/TRA (temporary restricted area). So that certainly served as a rest break. I get the Devs are using test data to back their decisions, and I have no problem with that. It's simply my sense that even with a rest the g tolerance is lower in game. I can live with it. Generally speaking, I would know right away (during the g warm up maneuver) if my tolerance was going to suffer that day, and I wouldn't pull as hard. 

 

Bottom line: I think the Devs greatly improved the air combat experience with the GLOC threshold and duration. I think the decreasing stamina (per sortie) is over modeled, but completely acceptable.

 

WRT to aircraft spotting. Back in the day...way back in the Jurassic era...I got very good at searching and spotting after I had an unobserved Canadian CF-104 rejoin on my right wing while flying along FDAH (fat dumb and happy) at 500 feet AGL. A big helper was the high LOS (line of sight) movement of airplanes against the background. These days flying a fighter size airplane (10m wingspan) spotting other slow moving fighter sized targets in RL is a mixed bag for me. Little relative motion, trying to spot a mostly white airplane, against a background of lots of white/light colored buildings and vehicle is problematic. I use a program called ForeFlight on my iPad mini when I fly. It has the ability to display other traffic (ADS-B) but not gliders. Some days I can spot a guy at 15 nm (28 km) moving at mostly right angles to my flight path, and not find a guy closing on me from a constant bearing (no LOS change) until he's inside of 4 nm (7 km). So spotting in game is a major challenge for me...especially on Combat Box with its bright blue sky and that huge sun hiding all those LW guys that kill me.

 

The color palette also seems to be a factor. IMO the USAAF & RAF airplanes often blossom as white pixels at a distance compared to LW airplanes that simply blend in with the background.

 

I know this thread is mostly about flying air-to-air, but my biggest appreciation for this sim is the low level environment. I absolutely freaking love the sensation of flying low over these maps. It genuinely makes me smile. This is what I did for a living for 9 of my 10 years in the USAF.  The maps are gorgeous!

 

 

 

 

[THERION]

8 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I know this thread is mostly about flying air-to-air, but my biggest appreciation for this sim is the low level environment. I absolutely freaking love the sensation of flying low over these maps. It genuinely makes me smile. This is what I did for a living for 9 of my 10 years in the USAF.  The maps are gorgeous!

 

 

Thank you very much, mate. I really appreciate your detailed observations. Great read, Sir.

Merci beaucoup!

[Bremspropeller]

15 minutes ago, busdriver said:

I'm an old fart, it has been just over 30 years since I pulled 9g in an airplane, and 33 years since I "experienced" the centrifuge. These days I get about 80+ hours a year in under powered taildraggers towing gliders and such.

 

Gee, I would have bet you're occupying seat number 0A in a european-made airliner, flying for a company called after a greek letter by your nickname and location.

Should I really have guessed all that wrong here?

 

Are you flying gliders, too then?

 

 

I also find spotting too hard in game - especially when tracking somebody, changing zoom and maneuvering. I have lost countless people (and fights) because I maneuvered the airplane, looked through a different part of the canopy and the other guy *poof* disappered. Much to the pleasure of the other people on TS, hearing me expressing very much beepable vocal content...

 

[busdriver]

I loved flying the 319/320. I retired 4 years ago...voluntarily...early...to make room for @SYN_Requiem on the seniority list. Gliders just don't do anything for me. Our club requires non-glider rated tow pilots to take an annual hop with a club instructor in the ASK-21 or Owl. Members ask why I'm not a glider pilot and tell them flying gliders would take away time from flying taildraggers (now that's flying!). 

 

10 minutes ago, Bremspropeller said:

I also find spotting too hard in game - especially when tracking somebody, changing zoom and maneuvering. I have lost countless people (and fights) because I maneuvered the airplane, looked through a different part of the canopy and the other guy *poof* disappered. 

 

Exactly! I say "bugger" a lot.

[6./ZG26_Klaus_Mann]

Before the Physiology the heavy, fast Fighters made very little Sense against more manouverable light Fighters which could pull Fw190s into Stalls at 600km/h, and do all sorts of crazy evasive Manouvers, so you always had to achieve absolute, total Surprise or Run.

 

Now you understand why the Fw190A was considered superior to the Mk.V Spit, which now has to really fight to get the 190 off its Tail and has to slow down considerably to get it's Manouverability Advantage.

Booming and Zooming suddenly works like an absolute Charm, with the attacked Aircraft no longer being able to just pull a hard 90° Turn to evade.

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

I know this thread is mostly about flying air-to-air, but my biggest appreciation for this sim is the low level environment. I absolutely freaking love the sensation of flying low over these maps. It genuinely makes me smile. This is what I did for a living for 9 of my 10 years in the USAF.  The maps are gorgeous!

 

Some of the best fun I have in this game is flying as low as possible and trying to follow the path of the rivers or through the mountains; and after the physiology update, cutting a "racing line" along the way to keep from blacking out. 

[Lusekofte]

I do not have PPL. But flown a lot of local club owned planes with instructors. 
These planes do not pull G on purpose at least with me in controls. I guess trying to do so will only get a solid wack in my head by instructor. 
I only had minor negative G worth mentioning. 
I guess you need plane buildt for that. What bother me is spotting ground targets. Normal cars are in rl easy to aim at from distances you cannot see in game. The rendering is bad,  The size is bad abd I guess it is difficult to fix. 

Edited January 25, 2020 by No.322_LuseKofte

[Bremspropeller]

30 minutes ago, J28w-Broccoli said:

Some of the best fun I have in this game is flying as low as possible and trying to follow the path of the rivers or through the mountains; and after the physiology update, cutting a "racing line" along the way to keep from blacking out.

 

I love that, too!

But be aware! @MeoW.Scharfi might come out of nowhere, cut your low-level tour through the Sieg river valley short and kill you and your wingman in a single pass.

 

16 minutes ago, No.322_LuseKofte said:

Normal cars are in rl easy to aim at from distances you cannot see in game. The rendering is bad,  The size is bad abd I guess it is difficult to fix. 

 

Next time you're in an airliner and you're looking out the window, try to make out cars on a highway. If you've got good vision, you'll see that you can just about make them out from a normal cruising altitude. Contrast is your friend. As is relative motion - the main reason, why avoiding mid-air collisions is so tricky: Sometimes you just won't make out the other airplane untill it's too late, while it literally explodes into your face. It's one of my primal fears when flying for real - there always that dude around, trying to kill you...

 

Positive g tolerance is like a muscle - you can train it. Especially when you know how to g-strain and when you are in good physical shape.

1 hour ago, busdriver said:

Members ask why I'm not a glider pilot and tell them flying gliders would take away time from flying taildraggers (now that's flying!). 

 

Even though I do have the tailwheel-endorsement for my FAA license, I'm currently trying to get checked out in a local Super Cub. On my first ride I got so sick so fast, I was unreal - there's no effing ventilation in that plane and I hadn't quite anticipated the temperatures this greenhouse might produce when directly beat-on by the sun.

Well, you could open the door, but I didn't fancy having stuff falling out of the airplane ?

 

Not sure if the sickness went away because I had to concentrate on landing and not messing up, or if the air got less rough in the pattern...

 

There's another physiological factor. Motion-sickness. It really messes you up.

It's trainable, too, and with more exposure, you'll be able to "fly through" and eventually not get sick at all. I envy those people who don't suffer from it at all...

It's the main reason why I love flying in the evning hours or even at night.

[busdriver]

1 hour ago, Bremspropeller said:

Next time you're in an airliner and you're looking out the window, try to make out cars on a highway. If you've got good vision, you'll see that you can just about make them out from a normal cruising altitude

 

We had (maybe they still use this) rule of thumb in the USAF if you could see individual trees you were below 10,000 feet. The importance being that if you were out of control and could see individual trees then it was time to eject. Of course that didn't help the squadron mates that departed controlled flight at FL310 over the Baltic and ejected at 10,000'.

[Talisman]

17 hours ago, busdriver said:

 

The color palette also seems to be a factor. IMO the USAAF & RAF airplanes often blossom as white pixels at a distance compared to LW airplanes that simply blend in with the background.

 

I think they have fixed the colour palette thing, as the following fix was announced as part of the latest patch:

 

"8. Brightness and size of very distant aircraft LODs made more uniform (it differed too much on some aircraft); "

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[DEDMANcjp]

As a perennial noob, I would love to have a G meter in the options to practice with in QMB.

[[CPT]Crunch]

To the original post, that's all moot unless balanced against usage numbers, and they're getting them every time you fire up and connect.  That and units sold are the only real data and numbers that count.  You can institute all the science and subject experts you want, in the end it doesn't matter if those numbers don't grow.  And they're never growing if you push it one way too far, ask Busdriver, the real deal is very demanding monotonous and hard work.  There has to be a balance with lots of reward toward the pleasure side, or as a game it ultimately fails.