Jump to content

G-resistance of the virtual pilot - opinions and discussion


Han
 Share

G-resistance of the virtual pilot - who is the prototype?  

593 members have voted

  1. 1. Which G-resistance should have a pilot in the IL-2?

    • IL-2 should have G-resistance parameters of intermediate pilot as it have now
    • IL-2 should have G-resistance parameters of over-medium pilot, like an ace
    • I'm disagree that current G-resistance model is realistic and corresponds to intermediate pilot abilities.

This poll is closed to new votes


Recommended Posts

  • 1CGS

Hello everyone,

So while we have performed a new look on how our community sees the visibility questions before - now we have decided to take a detailed look on another important issue. I talk about the pilot blackout model - we know that the current model is causing many controversy inside the community and we want to have a clear vision of our customers' opinions.

So at the moment the blackout model is designed based on the investigations of fighter pilots' abilities in struggling to G-loads. This scientific data includes many parameters like G-force strength, it's increasing speed, it's duration, it's direction, it's repeatability and frequency, rest period and other factors. So we have all these factors inside our new blackout model included. And values of all these factors are adjusted for intermediate fighter pilots.

But the discussion about visibility showed us that the majority of our community sure that their virtual alter-ego should have more than "intermediate abilities" because they fly in virtual fights in times more than real pilots have during the war. So for us it looks like that may be the majority of our community wants to have g-resistance abilities for their virtual alter-ego more than just as for intermediate fighter pilots. In general it looks like the majority of our community wants to have abilities and stamina not as regular, but as top-ace pilots. This desire is understandable. But we want to be sure about that. So, please let's start the discussion. And I hope that this discussion will be the same opened for any opinions and full of respect to opinions of other users as visibility discussion was (at least in its first half). Let's start.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 17
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Han pinned and featured this topic

I love the current g-model. Please don't change it! 

 

It's by far the best representation of this I've ever seen in a sim, and the fact that it's based on three datasets just lends it rigour and respectability. 

 

I fly the vast majority of my time as allied and the spitfire and tempest are two of my most frequent rides. If you're paying attention and learn how to ride the blackout and manouver correctly, the g-loc doesn't catch you out and it actually forces you to fly in a much more realistic manner than was possible before (you think porpoising evasive tactics are bad now, you should have seen what was going on before the current g-model was introduced!). 

 

Tl:dr - current g-model is perfect. The problem is with the pilots. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 31
Link to comment
Share on other sites

216th_Jordan

I voted

 

"IL-2 should have G-resistance parameters of over-medium pilot, like an ace"

 

because it really depends a lot on fitness and I would want to fly a fit pilot in a sim rather than a mediocre pilot even more so as I cannot feel the effects on the body.

But not much, something like 0.5 G up to max 1 G more than what we currently have.

 

> Many of us are flying as virtual aces, but are somewhat handicapped by the virtual pilot <

 

Nevertheless I like the current implementation as a system very much and would just want a little offset.

 

 

Edited by 216th_Jordan
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MeoW.Scharfi

I prefer the current G model as we have it now, 

 

BUT

 

Increase the negative G lock way more, that would be good so people don't stick jerk like mad to avoid getting shot.

Edited by MeoW.Scharfi
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 41
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is there a possibility to implement an adjustable variant (akin to normal/expert difficulty settings)? I like the idea of my career mode pilot being a bit of a veteran flyer, though in quickmatch/multiplayer I have no issues with the current model. Overall it's in decent shape.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im not sure, I like the current model, but Im playing only SP and when I switch to autopilot I see that the AI can somewhat fly when almost blacked out, which I cannot.

So I would like to keep the current model and tone down a bit AI flying at extreme G´s

 

On the other hand I find the game even on ace difficulty too easy, so this little cheat by AI is ironicaly welcomed.

 

So keep the current model if possible.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I first tried it I thought it to be a bit much.

As I fly only single player, I went in and selected the "simplified physiology" option and have been flying it with that set.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like an ace. There are many reasons why i think so. Not only for playability but I also think that seasoned pilots who where exposed to those gforces got used to it. The current model is very restrictive and makes many maneuvers impossible.  Maneuvers which are in the books and are done by current acrobatic pilots without g suits.

A more detailed comment is something for a later date when I have read again through the scientific papers I have read on the topic.

 

Edited by DerSheriff
  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the current implementation for positive G and don't want it changed too much, but the implementation for negative G, especially oscillating between positive and negative G, needs to be looked at. Right now people use extreme negative g maneuvers and flip-flopping as evasive maneuvers in combat, and in reality this would be extremely difficult to do without passing out. 

Perhaps an increase in the resistance to positive g forces, and a decrease to the tolerance for negative g forces and wild oscillations between the two.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 19
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the system as it is right now.

As RedKestrel said the negative G's are a bit strange and would probably benefit from a look at it.

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RedKestrel said:

I like the current implementation for positive G and don't want it changed too much, but the implementation for negative G, especially oscillating between positive and negative G, needs to be looked at. Right now people use extreme negative g maneuvers and flip-flopping as evasive maneuvers in combat, and in reality this would be extremely difficult to do without passing out. 

Perhaps an increase in the resistance to positive g forces, and a decrease to the tolerance for negative g forces and wild oscillations between the two.

I partially agree. However I would like to see the pos g tolerance upped by 20-40% and neg g and alternating loads way more punishing.

  • Upvote 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DerSheriff said:

I partially agree. However I would like to see the pos g tolerance upped by 20-40% and neg g and alternating loads way more punishing.

20% upped seems reasonable - that would up the graying out threshold from about 5G to 6 G and would maybe avoid problems in planes like the spitfire where the high elevator authority sometimes blacks you out on normal maneuvers. 40% would up it to maybe 7G which, I think personally is a bit too much. But this is just gut feeling on the matter, not coming from documentation or sources, so take it with a mound of salt.

And fully agreed on the negative g and alternating loads, that to me is the portion of the current modeling that is just too exploitable and produces jarring player behaviour.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Han said:

So the question is not about "how much it should be increased".

Question is: should it be increased or not.

It should be. In my opinion. And I think I can back that with data. But last Time I read the papers was at the introduction of the model.

Edited by DerSheriff
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love it right now.

Why should we all have the physiology of the top 1%? Pretty much all men involved in the war were common folk who downed factory tools for the rifle and a tractor for the tank. I would hate to see the G-effects made easier on the body for the sake of appeasing the vocal minority. Players can always disable the G-effects if they want an easier ride, or to pretend that they are some Übermensch.

 

If the scientific data has arrived at the point we have now, isn't that good enough?

Edited by Leifr
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Current model is fine and I voted for it. But as others mentioned, negative G effects and change between positive and negative could use some improvement.

  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, MeoW.Scharfi said:

I prefer the current G model as we have it now, 

 

BUT

 

Increase the negative G lock way more, that would be good so people don't stick jerk like mad to avoid getting shot.


^^^^^ This

Increase the G on-set sensitivity for positive and negative G's so that sudden spikes cause problems.  The current system rewards people who abuse the physiological model by dramatically spiking negative and positive G's to avoid gunfire. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

unreasonable

I am happy as it is but agree the ability to suddenly switching *ve and -ve many times seems a bit off. If that really worked so well in RL you have to wonder why we do not see it in descriptions of standard manoeuvres.  Perhaps a graphic of vomit on the inside of the windscreen?  ;) 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 Perhaps a graphic of vomit on the inside of the windscreen?

 

I'm definitely for realism and therefore - To vomit or not to vomit: That is the question...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should have G-resistance of intermediate pilot as it has now.

 

BUT please add (even as an option) the black-out graphical effect also when in external view (F2).

I cannot remember how many times i crashed while uncounsciouly pulling to many Gs in external view.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[APAF]VR_Spartan85

sorry i completely misread that poll

i AGREE with what we have now, gosh please dont scold me lol!

i cant revoke my vote :(

 

*hiding in shame*

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a SP flyer I would humbly suggest that in a campaign the the G tolerance should be variable, increasing slowly as your flight hours increase.  Sustained injuries should reduce the G tolerance immediately and slowly recover over time (over days/weeks depending on the severity of the injury).  This does nothing for MP, but would make the game more enjoyable over a longer campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think positive G’s are just fine. Like others said negative G’s need to be increased. I’ve been able to do a negative 180 degree loop and not red out.

 

Make better breathing sounds to give people a better sound indication of when they will black out. With better sounds and visuals the g meter would not be needed.

Edited by VBF-12_Esco
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[-=BP=-]Slegawsky_VR

Female pilot should have a fantastic G-strain/G-breath audio effect.

Rest purely academic issue.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would it be possible to make it that your G tolerance increases over time for your current virtual life? It would make your virtual life more valuable! 

 

It would be nice if it was a gradual increase to Ace status. Make it something that takes a few day/+40 hours  (of fighting not straight and level flying) to accomplish. 

 

Instead of based on time flown make it based on total amount of G’s pulled in that current virtual life (In order to avoid people pressing auto level and going afk to time build.

 

Make it something difficult to accomplish! Only those who make the best decisions will be able to get Ace G tolerance.

 

 

Edited by VBF-12_Esco
  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6./ZG26_5tuka

The current G-model in my opinion is one of the best representations of human physiology in flight sims.

 

Judging from a MP perspective it really was a game changer in some aspects and put more emphasize on tactical flying. Sure, a well trained, fit and relaxed pilot could probably sustain some more Gs but given the realities of war many pilots were forced to fly tired, unfit and with little expirience of their own body restrictions. Add psychological factors such as depression, fear, panic, tunnel vision ect. and you will probably find out that even intermediate combat pilots had a lower stress tolerance when flying than lets say a modern aerobatic pilot.

Edited by 6./ZG26_5tuka
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

I'm with Sheriff on this one

In the negative G aspect, tolerance should be decreased, also the "push pull effect" should be modelled. That is after going 0G or negative G and pull positive G quickly afterwards the positive G tolerance should be severly decreased. It is discussed in this thread:
 


Then in regards to positive G tolerance on it's own, the tolerance should be a bit higher in regards to the onset rate, in that same thread I linked Floppy Sock links a newer study with a bigger number of cases than the evaluation in the bibliography the devs have used for the current model (not saying that the devs did a bad job, just that as science advances the knowledge on topics gets updated with new data, and we should try to aim for the most up to date data to have the most accurate model as possible :salute: ).

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Thanks 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_5tuka said:

The current G-model in my opinion is one of the best representations of human physiology in flight sims.

 

Judging from a MP perspective it really was a game changer in some aspects and put more emphasize on tactical flying. Sure, a well trained, fit and relaxed pilot could probably sustain some more Gs but given the realities of war many pilots were forced to fly tired, unfit and with little expirience of their own body restrictions. Add psychological factors such as depression, fear, panic, tunnel vision ect. and you will probably find out that even intermediate combat pilots had a lower stress tolerance when flying than lets say a modern acrobatic pilot.

In my opinion 5tuka nailed it. Of course a pilot only flying one mission per day might increase his fitness, but the average pilot, flying more than one mission per day, being often in dogfights, as we are in our missions, will get tired and have to be careful with the way he flies his fights.

And I agree with what others posted, negative Gs should have a bit more effect.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

S10JlAbraxis

I like it just as it is. 

 

Please do not change.

 

This has been one of the best additions to IL2 and adds so much depth to the tactical decision making during a dogfight.  Also avoids unrealistic turn performance in aircraft that can sustain turns faster than pilots can tolerate for more then a few seconds - this was a huge step forward in the flight model.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-Ursus_

I missclicked in the poll so i will explain myself here. The devs wants our opinion anyway.

I like the current G system. Maybe the positive G forces could be resisted just a little bit more, but not to much.

 

But as @MeoW.Scharfi said, there is something wrong in negative G. A lot of ppl is abusing of negative G rolls since is more tolerable than positive G forces.

Edited by -332FG-Ursus_
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm happy with the G modeling for the most part. It's been one if the best improvements to Il-2 in my opinion. 

 

The only tweak I would make is to improve the pilot's resistance when you apply a rapid G force onset and increase the time you can hold maximum sustained G rather than increase the max sustained G too much. This would result in the greying/blacking out to be less rapid than what it is currently, but allow you to make a mistake with enough time to back off.

 

If you increase the pilot's performance to the point where every pilot is considered a Blue Angel you may as well have just left the initial system unchanged, so don't go too far in that direction please.

Edited by Requiem
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[APAF]VR_Spartan85
6 minutes ago, -332FG-Ursus_ said:

I missclicked in the poll so i will explain myself here. The devs wants our opinion anyway.

I like the current G system. Maybe the positive G forces could be resisted just a little bit more, but not to much.

 

But as @MeoW.Scharfi said, there is something wrong in negative G. A lot of ppl is abusing of negative G rolls since is more tolerable than positive G forces.

oh thank cod im not the only one :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like the G modelling as it is, but IMO two things that could be tweaked:

 

  • Increase negative G effects, they're almost non-existent unless holding negative G for a prolonged time.
  • Pilot fatigue recovery could be a bit more lenient. Often times you will still feel the effects of fatigue even with plenty of downtime in between fights.
Edited by Krupinskii
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9./JG52_J-HAT

I don't have any complaints about the current model. Maybe the pilot g-locks too early but I wouldn't know. I don't feel a change is necessary.

Voted for the ace option anyways, regardless if that is what it is now or not as I feel that would leave more room for the individual player's skills.

Edited by J-HAT
Typos
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • BlackSix unpinned this topic

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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...