Negative G's issue

[6FG_Kordd]

After seeing many people doing crazy negative gs manoeuver i've been looking at Tacview to be sure if it was just me or there was a real problem, and i saw that i was easily able to reach -6g without any issues or even a bit of redout. That shouldnt be possible when you know that a typical human can barely hold -2 to -3 g. And you can see on this Tacview from the G graph that i've been doing it multiple times in a row for roughly one minutes.And many people use this kind of issue at their advantages (i think even everyone without realizing that's impossible).
 

 

Edited May 14, 2020 by 6FG_Kordd

[QB.Shallot]

+1, sharp negative G maneuvers should seriously red out a pilot, there's a reason you don't see footage of fighter jocks going 40 degrees nose down from a negative bunt.

I weep for the eyes of those virtual pilots, how blood shot they must be. 

[JG13_opcode]

Can you still do an outside negative-G loop?  That was a thing for a while as I recall. 

[6FG_Kordd]

Well i can try to do it again, but i recently did one while i was trying all those negative maneoeuvers

[Floppy_Sock]

I think this one of my biggest gripes about the new "pilot physiology" model.

 

The push pull effect is extremely dangerous.

 

It's not modeled. 

[Blackhawk_FR]

9 hours ago, Floppy_Sock said:

I think this one of my biggest gripes about the new "pilot physiology" model.

 

The push pull effect is extremely dangerous.

 

It's not modeled. 

 

That! Yes. 

 

On 5/14/2020 at 9:19 PM, 6FG_Kordd said:

That shouldnt be possible when you know that a typical human can barely hold -2 to -3 g.

 

Where does those numbers come from? 

-3G is disturbing/unconfortable for most of people the first time but that's all. 

 

 

As said above, the main problem is there is no loss of positive G tolerance after negative G (or just severals seconds of inverted flight). After a negative push, the pilot should black out way WAAAAAYYYYYYY faster with less G than usual. 

[CountZero]

This is favorit way to lose 6 or make guy on 6 miss or even overshoot by players online, and its posible as game alows it.

Also values og G forces are not correct in tacview for this game, i remenber when players complained about how some airplanes can sustain more G then others and so on tacview was shown as evidance to devs ... it was said that there is some missing data in calculations of G forces by tacview and should not be considered as correct.

If you do up down for longer time your view will start to tilt and move left right and so on to simulate distorted pilot but its so week and happends after so long time of up-down that it looks like its nonexistant.

[Talisman]

The big danger with neg-g, particularly without a an anti-g suit, is the rate of onset.  

 

The rate of onset factor is very often forgotten about in these discussions, but it is critical.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[Floppy_Sock]

13 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

The big danger with neg-g, particularly without a an anti-g suit, is the rate of onset.  

 

The rate of onset factor is very often forgotten about in these discussions, but it is critical.

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

Edit: Woops I missed the negative part. Disregard this. It relates to positive G. 

 

This is actually not correct. This was touted by the devs in their blog.  The paper the devs used used that made this claim (Kydd GH, Stoll AM: G tolerance in primates. J Aviat Med 1958, 29:413–421) was from 1958. This is the paper where this image comes from:This conclusion was based on only 14 loss of consciousness events. It's been critically reviewed multiple times by different authors and subsequent studies. 

 

There is a much more recent study from 2013 which compiles over 800 loss of consciousness events with which the following conclusion is made:

 

Quote

The two new G-LOC curves differed significantly from previous curves in temporal characteristics and key aspects underlying neurologic response to acceleration. The new acceleration onset rate curve reveals that for onset rates ≥ 1.0 G/s, G-LOC will occur in a mean time of 9.10 s and is independent of the onset rate. The new +Gz-level curve demonstrates that G-LOC will occur in a mean time of 9.65 s for rapid onset rate exposures to +Gz levels ≥ +7 Gz. The minimum +Gz-level threshold tolerance was defined as +4.7 Gz. When +Gz onset rates are gradual, ≤ 0.2 G/s, G-LOC occurs in a mean time of 74.41 s. G-LOC did not occur earlier than 5 s for any acceleration exposure

Whinnery, T., Forster, E.M. The +Gz-induced loss of consciousness curve. Extrem Physiol Med 2, 19 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19

 

It was found that onset rate is not a factor above 1 G/s. Find this study here: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19 

 

The final sentence is addressed specifically at the conclusion you're referencing @56RAF_Talisman.

 

 

Edited May 18, 2020 by Floppy_Sock

[[110]xJammer]

11 hours ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

The big danger with neg-g, particularly without a an anti-g suit, is the rate of onset.  

 

 

G-suit helps with neg-G? ?

Edited May 18, 2020 by [110]xJammer

[332ndSandman_359]

I just posted a discussion in general, wen I saw this and deleted it. I was gonna ask if it was still a thing since I stoped flying since the update that added the g system. I got on today and noticed alot of pilots doing it. So I wanted to know if I was just really bad at the game or there a new sort of meta or both? I find the negative g thing frustrating, but I get why ppl would do it. 

 

[Blackhawk_FR]

1 hour ago, [110]xJammer said:

G-suit helps with neg-G? ?

 

Not at all. 

 

For all:

Keep in mind people in general tend to under estimate the human's tolerance to negative G. 

[Blackhawk_FR]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:19 PM, 6FG_Kordd said:

i saw that i was easily able to reach -6g

 

Now we can confirm. -3.5G for severals seconds are enough to get a G lock 

[ShadowFrost]

http://medind.nic.in/iab/t01/i1/i1/iabt01i1p8o.pdf

 

I figured this would be good to add. 

 

TL:DR If you pull negative g's, expect positive G tolerance to be significantly reduced for a duration afterward. 

[Blackhawk_FR]

3 hours ago, ShadowFrost said:

http://medind.nic.in/iab/t01/i1/i1/iabt01i1p8o.pdf

 

I figured this would be good to add. 

 

TL:DR If you pull negative g's, expect positive G tolerance to be significantly reduced for a duration afterward. 

 

I've open this thread to make this suggestion and gather all datas. I'm adding your link. If you find more, don't hesitate to post it. 

 

[Y-29.Silky]

On 5/17/2020 at 8:45 AM, CountZero said:

This is favorit way to lose 6 or make guy on 6 miss or even overshoot by players online, and its posible as game alows it.

 

This crap is game breaking for me. 

 

https://streamable.com/pfb9n

 

https://streamable.com/f4ql2

 

Totally unrealistic, their eyes should have popped out of their heads pulling that bs.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Y-29.Silky

[CountZero]

51 minutes ago, Y-29.Silky said:

 

This crap is game breaking for me. 

 

https://streamable.com/pfb9n

 

https://streamable.com/f4ql2

 

Totally unrealistic, their eyes should have popped out of their heads pulling that bs.

 

Yes, but its best way to lose 6 and it has no sideefects, so ones who dont do that get shoot down easyer.

 

solution is proposed already here, reduce G toterances to game pilot if your doing up/down stunts like thouse. And then youll not see this behavior so offten as there would be no benefit to it.

 

[-SF-Disarray]

I was playing around with G's after this last update and have found something interesting. There seems to be a negative effect of going from positive to negative G's rapidly for an extended period of maybe 5 seconds in game. After that the picture blurs a little and the screen starts to wobble around in a rather disconcerting way. I've had others try this and they found the same things I did. I also saw that hard negative stabs are producing upwards of -5 G's with seemingly no effect on the pilot. I didn't have a stop watch handy but it must have been close to a second.

[LukeFF]

Just now, -SF-Disarray said:

I was playing around with G's after this last update and have found something interesting. There seems to be a negative effect of going from positive to negative G's rapidly for an extended period of maybe 5 seconds in game. After that the picture blurs a little and the screen starts to wobble around in a rather disconcerting way. I've had others try this and they found the same things I did. I also saw that hard negative stabs are producing upwards of -5 G's with seemingly no effect on the pilot. I didn't have a stop watch handy but it must have been close to a second.

 

Yes, that was implemented along with the new G-force tolerance model a few updates back.

[JG27*PapaFly]

On 5/14/2020 at 9:19 PM, 6FG_Kordd said:

After seeing many people doing crazy negative gs manoeuver i've been looking at Tacview to be sure if it was just me or there was a real problem, and i saw that i was easily able to reach -6g without any issues or even a bit of redout. That shouldnt be possible when you know that a typical human can barely hold -2 to -3 g. And you can see on this Tacview from the G graph that i've been doing it multiple times in a row for roughly one minutes.And many people use this kind of issue at their advantages (i think even everyone without realizing that's impossible).

The tolerance to negative Gs differs a lot between German and allied planes. If you gently push a FW-190 series plane from level flight into a vertical five, the engine will be destroyed the moment you reach the vertical. That's not an issue with e.g the spitfire series. I've complained about this issue more than a year ago, but to no avail.

[unreasonable]

7 minutes ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

The tolerance to negative Gs differs a lot between German and allied planes. If you gently push a FW-190 series plane from level flight into a vertical five, the engine will be destroyed the moment you reach the vertical. That's not an issue with e.g the spitfire series. I've complained about this issue more than a year ago, but to no avail.

 

The topic is about the effect of -Gs on the pilot.   Your complaint is about the engine RPM limits.... or something.  Just throttle back before a steep dive.   

[JG27*PapaFly]

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Just throttle back before a steep dive. 

Right, are you f##### kidding me? Pushing into a negative dive at full power was THE mainstay defensive Luftwaffe maneuver. So let's just all forget about it and throttle back, LOL.

 

What I see is a double f###-up: some planes can push negative Gs like there's no tomorrow, while others get a dead engine.

Edited May 24, 2020 by JG27_PapaFly

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 hours ago, JG27_PapaFly said:

Right, are you f##### kidding me? Pushing into a negative dive at full power was THE mainstay defensive Luftwaffe maneuver. So let's just all forget about it and throttle back, LOL.

 

What I see is a double f###-up: some planes can push negative Gs like there's no tomorrow, while others get a dead engine.

 

As you know, most German aircraft have fuel injected engines, and are tolerant to negative Gs, whereas many other planes just have a carburetor, and their engines should be cutting out....so when you say dead engine, you mean the engine is literally destroyed, or simply that it cuts out?  Have never seen an engine be destroyed by negative G in this sim.

Edited May 24, 2020 by SeaSerpent

[Raven109]

24 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

As you know, most German aircraft have fuel injected engines, and are tolerant to negative Gs, whereas many other planes just have a carburetor, and their engines should be cutting out....so when you say dead engine, you mean the engine is literally destroyed, or simply that it cuts out?  Have never seen an engine be destroyed by negative G in this sim.

 

I think he's talking about oil starvation, which is unrelated to whether the fuel was injected or not. Oil starvation was a real thing, even for the German aircraft.

 

Take a 109, fly inverted for a few seconds, your engine will start losing power and then after a while shut down after 20s at -1G. Same for the FW.

Edited May 24, 2020 by Raven109

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, Raven109 said:

 

I think he's talking about oil starvation, which is unrelated to whether the fuel was injected or not. Oil starvation was a real thing, even for the German aircraft.

 

Take a 109, fly inverted for a few seconds, your engine will start losing power and then after a while shut down after 20s at -1G. Same for the FW.

 

Spitfires.  Mk IX - ~15 seconds of inverted flight before rpms become irregular followed by cut.

 

 

Edited May 25, 2020 by unreasonable

[=FEW=Hauggy]

I'm seeing it a lot too unfortunately.

+1 This needs some attention from the devs.

[Rattlesnake]

I will point out that you didn’t see this neg G chicanery as much before because: 
 

1. Actual defensive ACM like breaks and barrel rolls weren’t going to suddenly and unpredictably black you out at ??? G loading, it doesn’t matter (within reason) what the specific limiting G in a game is, but it must remain *consistent* to know how to select and execute your maneuvers.

 

2. Most gun packages were efficacious enough  that the person pulling this landed trout BS stuff would probably just be taken out by a short burst at close range anyways. 
 

 

Unintended consequences, and “If ain’t broke...”. (If it is broke at least don’t make it broker.)

Edited May 31, 2020 by Rattlesnake

[-332FG-Buddy]

On 5/24/2020 at 10:41 PM, =FEW=Hauggy said:

I'm seeing it a lot too unfortunately.

+1 This needs some attention from the devs.

+1