G-resistance of the virtual pilot - opinions and discussion

[E69_geramos109]

Very happy to see that interest on the comunity feedback from Devs 

 

?

Edited August 31, 2020 by E69_geramos109

[Mac_Messer]

5 hours ago, Han said:

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.

Fair enough for me. Scientific data for average pilot is a great middle ground imo.

 

More G resistance would lead to returning of ufo-like gameplay from both human and AI pilots. Average G resistance modelling provides a challenging gameplay that requires smooth flying and planning ahead. It is a great 50/50 situation.

 

Literally the only thing lacks here is AI programming, a very difficult feat to perform I`d think. AI pilots lock up too frequently and are in such moments too easy of a target for a player that is already used to G force modelling feature.

[SCG_motoadve]

Please do not change it!  its pretty good, game has become much more realistic and fun since the pilot physiology , no more UFO maneuvering in front of you.

IMHO increasing G tolerances will be a step in the wrong direction.

I fly for real a military trainer two to  4 times per week there is a big difference when planning maneuvers on your own, you can anticipate for the maneuver, but when dogfighting against someone and experience high Gs  with no anticipation is a lot harder, more like we have in game, I  think developers have it spot on.

Edited August 31, 2020 by SCG_motoadve

[CountZero]

I like all exept there is posible to do strange constant up down moves like dalphin, dont know if -G needs to be harsh to eliminate this or more punishment is needed when doing fast -G +G manovers, so i vote "I'm disagree that current G-resistance model is realistic and corresponds to intermediate pilot abilities." For me G effects need to be more harsh if anything.

[69th_chuter]

I vote for Capt. Vern Richards (361st FG B7-R) to be our Health Standard Model as he seems to be a rather typical young, virile fighter pilot of the era.  Remember, unlike modern combat and aerobatic pilots, pilots back then did no G-force resistance training.  The idea back then was that if you needed G-force resistance training you were flying wrong.

 

Another issue besides just the effect of G forces on pilots is the effect on aircraft.  The A-20 should not be capable of blacking out a pilot as the aircraft would either suffer an accelerated stall or would break apart before the pilot could black out.

 

 

 

 

 

[LuftManu]

imho the G modelling is great! and some small edits should be added instead of changing to another criteria. For example, more problems when changing from positive G's to negative G's.

[VBF-12_Snake9]

Please stop the flip flopping.  Game rewards flip floppers way too much.  

[Ribbon]

Since we fly a lot i think we should get better G-resistance than newbie pilot had in ww2, somewhere in between newbie and ace, a bit closer to the ace!

In fact we should get ace g resistance, otherwise we're unable to recreate ace flying conditions and use full potential of the plane as some aces did back then.....again most of us fly a lot, a lot more than even aces flew back than!

Having ace g resistance we're still inside realism boundaries while being more realistic than having newbie g-resistance.

//don't know where we stand right now on that matter//

Edited August 31, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[Jade_Monkey]

I like the current model a lot and I think it needs only very slight tweaking making it a tiny bit easier.

 

I'd prefer no changes at all vs making a big change.

 

Edited August 31, 2020 by Jade_Monkey

[Beazil]

Okay so I've heard a lot of thoughts on this topic and I can't help but think I have to agree with guys like Moto Dave and that it appears the current modeling seems accurate. Now I admit I am not any kind of an expert in human physiology at all. I also find myself agreeing with the first person to respond that suggested that operating within the bounds of what is currently possible is part of exploiting the best use of your plane.  Personally I find trying to operate within the envelope to be an additional challenge to managing the enemy, your situational awareness, your energy, all that kind of stuff.  I have no reason to believe it should be changed.

The idea of an avatar that evolves over time is interesting, but I would think that should be something the devs only consider for single play.   And really, how much more can one's ability to withstand the effects of G forces be developed with time and training anyway?  Genuinely curious on that one.

[BlitzPig_EL]

I don't mind the current system as it applies to human pilots, but the AI all seem to be G proof supermen.  The AI need a really good look at their G tolerance routine, either that or the humans get the super ace G tolerance that they have.

[Ribbon]

19 minutes ago, JG51_Beazil said:

Okay so I've heard a lot of thoughts on this topic and I can't help but think I have to agree with guys like Moto Dave and that it appears the current modeling seems accurate. Now I admit I am not any kind of an expert in human physiology at all. I also find myself agreeing with the first person to respond that suggested that operating within the bounds of what is currently possible is part of exploiting the best use of your plane.  Personally I find trying to operate within the envelope to be an additional challenge to managing the enemy, your situational awareness, your energy, all that kind of stuff.  I have no reason to believe it should be changed.

The idea of an avatar that evolves over time is interesting, but I would think that should be something the devs only consider for single play.   And really, how much more can one's ability to withstand the effects of G forces be developed with time and training anyway?  Genuinely curious on that one.

Also take in mind fighter type, with newbie g resistance turn fighters lose a lot of their main advantage over b&z-ers.

Ingame we're not newbies, by experience a much closer to aces, that would be much more realistic than newbie g-resistance.

I'm all for realism, but give us experienced pilot fatique and abilities!

Edited August 31, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[69th_Panp]

3 hours ago, Requiem said:

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.

I agree with Requiem

improve the pilot's resistance when you apply a rapid G force onset and increase the time you can hold maximum sustained G

[CSW_Tommy544]

In my opinion, the general G resistance of our pilots should be increased by a small amount, especially in short and rapid high G maneuvers. As it is right now, it almost seems like the system was calibrated for situations where the pilot/test subject was not expecting the G-force. In that case it would be totally understandable that the person would black-out the moment the G-force increases to lets say 8 Gs. However, I believe that if you are anticipating the G load and since we are not trying to simulate a newbie pilot that does not know what to expect, the pilot should be able to resist the extreme G loads for a short period of time better, as we're expecting he is using proper breathing and muscle tightening techniques. As others have said, just look at some aerobatic pilots and the G-forces they can withstand for short periods of time. There are definitely many aerobatic pilots who are far from their twenties and not perfectly fit that are able to take a lot more Gs than out pilot.

 

Another issue for me is that there seems to be some sort of "inertia" included with the onset of over-G effects. For example when pulling a high G maneuver while trying to evade an incoming attack, I can see the grey-out effect appearing on my screen, so I immediately release the stick to 1G, but if the initial maneuver was too sharp, sometimes the gray-out effect continues to a full loss of consciousness. I don't think there should be this inertia. If you are able to stop the turn while still being conscious, the body should be able to pump the blood to your brain immediately.

 

As some others have expressed, I also don't like the sharp negative G maneuvers followed by a sharp positive G maneuvers that some pilots are using to evade gun fire. However, I don't agree that we should decrease the negative G tolerance of our pilots. Even now it is very difficult to perform a negative G loop without the pilot loosing consciousness. It is possible, but you need to start at a very precise airspeed and be very careful with pushing the stick. This is again a maneuver, albeit very uncomfortable, that aerobatics pilots regularly perform. The problem here lies either with there being no punishment for switching between full negative and full positive G load rapidly or simply in the flight model of some planes that do not get unstable at all in these extreme maneuvers.

 

TLDR: I think the overall resistance to G forces of our pilots should be slightly increased, especially in short, but very high G maneuvers. The extreme negative G maneuvers that are possible to be performed should not be fixed by lowering resistance of our pilots to negative G forces, but rather having a look at the flight models.

[Diggun]

11 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

give us experienced pilot fatique and abilities!

Let's ask everyone if they are an average or above average driver...

 

I don't care how many hours any of us have in the game, I see no reason why our in game presence should be anything more than average. 

 

If you think you're special, do feel free to disagree with both this, and the current, backed up by 3 separate data sources g-model. 

[ACG_PanzerVI]

I too think that the max g-loads should be increased somewhat, but I want to be clear what I'm talking about.  I don't think that instantaneous loads need much adjustment.  If a Spitfire or Yak pilot pulls from 1G to 6G in a 1/4 second, he should go to sleep.   Conversely, a gradual increase in G-load up to 6 or 7 G was probably tolerable for a well trained or experienced WWII pilot.  However, I think that the impact of this should be considered.  Planes that are inherently faster will become even more deadly.  The ME-262 is currently badly hampered by unrealistic G-limits.  The change from a 5ish G limit to a 7ish G limit will have a dramatic effect on overall maneuverability of planes going 600kph, but will have a much more incremental difference for planes doing 450 or less.  Just something to bear in mind before we all sign up.  The 262 in particular, but also the P-51, P-47, Tempest and (probably) the Mosquito will all benefit more than will the Spit, the Yak or the mid-war 109s.  This is mostly supposition and conversation with far more experienced aviators, so I won't debate with anyone on it - not equipped with data to back up my assertions.  Ask some of the test wonks if I'm right. But a controlled, tested increase for gradually increased loads makes sense to me.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

I´m very happy to see this poll and the interest on the comunity feedback from Devs about this issue. 

In accordance with a test performed moths ago by a squadmate, with TACVIEW, we noticed that Bf-109G enter in blackout in game in manoeuvres at about, 6 Gs.

..and we thinking about G´s blackout in game was set arbitrarily, without apply real physics laws.

Now we can see different results, and blackouts occurs at 4 to 5 G´s, pulling the control stick one second, i think that it is exaggerated.

what do you thinks about this feature??

 

Spoiler

G-limits chart for average aerobatics pilots, FAA report 1972, ...Pay attention to this chart, and how many seconds need an average pilot for enter in blackout.
A real pilot need 30 seconds at 5G´s for enter in blackout, ..in game the Bf-109 we enter instantly when reaches 5 G´s

 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[danielprates]

If some forum member here is a real-life acrobatic pilot, his is the opinion I would like to endorse. Other than that... I remeber this being discussed a lot and as far as I remember, historical paramers were studied prior to G effects being implemented. 

 

This is not like the spotting issue. As far as I remember, people are mostly ok with the G effects, no?

Edited August 31, 2020 by danielprates

[sevenless]

I love that G-model. It was sort of a shock in the Tempest when introduced, but I adapted. I was even recently able to phyically exhaust an I-16 pilots in SP, resulting in him blacking out and crashing to the ground. However I can understand the demand to tune it down a bit. It is a game after all and should be fun for most of the audience. I am perfectly happy with the current setting, but don´t mind if you switch to modelling a well trained and physically ace pilot. However something over-human is out of bounds for me.

[BraveSirRobin]

We should not have the same g tolerance as aerobatic pilots.  They train constantly to deal with the g forces that they encounter.  Fighter pilots were too busy flying missions for that sort of training.

[TX-Zigrat]

I voted for option #3. I strongly encourage you all who voted  for options 1 or 2 to go read Floppy_Sock's excellent posts in the following thread:

 

Bottom line, I think there should be an accurate G force model that represents an "average" pilot but there are two simple, easily solved issues that must be fixed.

 

First, the current model does not represent actual average LOCINDTI. Read details in the thread linked below. You would need to add +5 seconds approximately to get near what a "normal" pilot can do IRL. 

 

The second significant flaw in the current model is related to negative G and the crazy "push-pull" high G maneuvers that are used as evasive maneuvers that would in reality cause you to blackout more quickly.

 

 

[danielprates]

Brave Sir Boring is right, we should ask actual wartime pilots currently on their early 20s, who fly brand new, structurally unstressed 1940s piston engine fighters, with at least a few month's worth of combat training and, of course, actual combat experience. We will nail it then, won't we?

[Ribbon]

45 minutes ago, Diggun said:

Let's ask everyone if they are an average or above average driver...

 

I don't care how many hours any of us have in the game, I see no reason why our in game presence should be anything more than average. 

 

If you think you're special, do feel free to disagree with both this, and the current, backed up by 3 separate data sources g-model. 

Where did you read i want unrealistic or out of charts/data G-model.

I also said i don't know where we stand with current model but i would prefer somethnig between medium to ace or even ace model as we do fly a lot.

So take it easy, i have rights to my opinion without being called "special one"!

Also i pointed out that limiting g forces to lower RL data is taking away turn fighters advantage.

Btw if driving is your job and spend much time driving sure you're above average driver skillset 

Edited August 31, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

45 minutes ago, sevenless said:

However I can understand the demand to tune it down a bit.

Yes, i´m agree, tune like a real average aerobatic pilots data, and personal experiences of many real pilots here in the community.  
I´ve asked about this issue in FB community and several real pilots with aerobatics experience stated that G-blackout effect in game is very exaggerated, but it´s necessary and a good feature.

 

44 minutes ago, BraveSirRobin said:

We should not have the same g tolerance as aerobatic pilots.  They train constantly to deal with the g forces that they encounter.  Fighter pilots were too busy flying missions for that sort of training.

All fighter pilots in WWII were trained in basic aerobatic maneuvers, G-effects and hypoxia, etc. Moreover Stuka , Dauntless or Jabo pilots were exposed to high-G effects everytime that they launch a bomb, several times everyday in the war, stating that they were less trained than a current aerobatic pilot is childish conjecture.

Edited September 1, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

I don't mind the current system as it applies to human pilots, but the AI all seem to be G proof supermen.  The AI need a really good look at their G tolerance routine, either that or the humans get the super ace G tolerance that they have.

 

The AI uses the same G-force model as the player.

[BraveSirRobin]

11 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

 

childish conjecture.

It’s actually very adult conjecture.  Aerobatic pilots have to train constantly because they have to endure much higher g forces than a fighter pilot.  If a WW2 fighter pilot is constantly performing 7+ g maneuvers, then he’s doing something very wrong.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

It’s actually very adult conjecture.  Aerobatic pilots have to train constantly because they have to endure much higher g forces than a fighter pilot.  If a WW2 fighter pilot is constantly performing 7+ g maneuvers, then he’s doing something very wrong.

Do you know something about dive bombing?? i think not.

[BraveSirRobin]

1 minute ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Do you know something about dive bombing?? i think not.

I know it’s not something that a P-51 driver is going to do very often.  If you want to argue that Stuka drivers should have high g tolerance, go for it.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

1 minute ago, BraveSirRobin said:

P-51 driver

Driver??  ..what are you doing here??  

[oc2209]

10 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

 

The AI uses the same G-force model as the player.

 

I voted to keep the G-model in its current form. I've learned to not expect to be able to suddenly enter a tight turn at anything above 250 MPH. I've learned to cut throttle before entering tight turns, and then gradually increasing throttle as you pull tighter. Not sure how well that correlates to real-life behavior, but I like having limitations and having to think a little before I perform certain maneuvers. Upping the G-limit would ultimately just reduce the amount of caution you'd need to exercise.

 

In terms of the AI's G-limit, I have seen it black out in Spitfires. Not many other planes, though. I don't mind if the AI doesn't black out often, though; because if it was in any more danger of blacking out (decreased tolerance), it would turn even less tightly than it does. And that tight turning ability is pretty much the only thing that can keep the AI alive in most cases. If you reduce its turning ability in any way, you might as well make it a target drone.

[Diggun]

43 minutes ago, =VARP=Ribbon said:

i would prefer somethnig between medium to ace or even ace model as we do fly a lot.

This is literally where you claim that you should receive special treatment. 

 

I fly a lot myself. 

 

Every instance of me spawning in should be a different member of aircrew in the cockpit of our (artificially perfect) warbird. What that means is that I should be treated like the rawest replacement pilot available. Any other solution would just help the blue side without any data to prove that situation. 

 

If the fact that you happen to be able to spend more time in this environment than others means you get a material advantage in game then 1) Nice to meet you baby boomers, how is the retired life treating you? And 2) I'm guessing you're new to the game. Don't worry, you'll get it all sorted pretty soon. Just start calling people up on SRS or discord and you'll find a mentor soon enough. 

[SCG_motoadve]

1 hour ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Yes, i´m agree, tune like a real average aerobatic pilots data, and personal experiences of many real pilots here in the community.  
I´ve asked about this issue in FB community and several real pilots with aerobatics experience stated that G-blackout effect in game is very exaggerated, but it´s necessary and a good feature.

 

All fighter pilots in WWII were trained in basic aerobatic maneuvers, G-effects and hypoxia, etc. Moreover Stuka , Dauntless or Jabo pilots were exposed to high-G effects everytime that they launch a bomb, several times everyday in the war, stating that they were less trained than a current aerobatic pilot is childish conjecture.

Aerobatic pilots anticipate and prepare for each maneuver, plus have a routine they practice over and over again, a big heavy warbird at faster speeds with no anticipation of what maneuver they are going to do is a whole different story, I have done both aerobatics on my own and just playing dogfights against other friends, its a whole different world and lots more challenging  regarding Gs not knowing what maneuver comes next and not anticipating for it.

This is why I think game is spot ON.

[Ribbon]

3 hours ago, Diggun said:

This is literally where you claim that you should receive special treatment. 

 

I fly a lot myself. 

 

Every instance of me spawning in should be a different member of aircrew in the cockpit of our (artificially perfect) warbird. What that means is that I should be treated like the rawest replacement pilot available. Any other solution would just help the blue side without any data to prove that situation. 

 

If the fact that you happen to be able to spend more time in this environment than others means you get a material advantage in game then 1) Nice to meet you baby boomers, how is the retired life treating you? And 2) I'm guessing you're new to the game. Don't worry, you'll get it all sorted pretty soon. Just start calling people up on SRS or discord and you'll find a mentor soon enough. 

 

Nice try trolling and twisting my words without reading my original post, reread my quote and original post or troll someone else.

It's not me getting speacial treatmant since WE (not ME) all get it (same for all), so you're trolling, you can't read or my english is total crap!

 

You considering every ingame detah means new fresh pilot (which i agree for SP part and immersion) and me looking at it from MP stand of point not counting getting killed and starting all over with fresh pilot instead caring my MP skills (which are not great, but also not newbiesh).

It has nothing to do with do i spend more time ingame than you or some new player.....it has more to do that we do spend more time flying and pushing limits than average ww2 pilot did back then so we are closer to flying time and experience to ww2 ace than we are to average ww2 pilot.

I cheerd for "experienced" pilot fatique and g tolerance (inside RL ww2 data charts limits) since i fly in MP (both sides) and i think newbie or average ww2 pilot G tolerance harms more to turn fighters than it does to energy fighters....considering it not fair.

I'm all for realism but on higher end of RL data charts in all things related to flight simming due to hw limitations and different conditions we face compared to RL flying.

If you disagree with it and being hurt by my opinion, that's your problem, we're here free to give our opinions and devs will bring final decision!

 

 

S!

 

Edited September 1, 2020 by =VARP=Ribbon

[AWC]

I love the g-tolerance as it is now, it was a great improvement to the game. I agree with others about abuse of negative g's and Requiem's comment about reduced onset of blackout.

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

31 minutes ago, SCG_motoadve said:

Aerobatic pilots anticipate and prepare for each maneuver, plus have a routine they practice over and over again, a big heavy warbird at faster speeds with no anticipation of what maneuver they are going to do is a whole different story, I have done both aerobatics on my own and just playing dogfights against other friends, its a whole different world and lots more challenging  regarding Gs not knowing what maneuver comes next and not anticipating for it.

This is why I think game is spot ON.

Are you serious??  ..If you are not able to anticipate what maneuver you will do when you engage in a dogfight against a enemy, you are not a good pilot. 
We the old school virtual pilots are able to anticipate to the enemy maneuvers most of the time, and when we do it, we won the combat. It work the same in the real life.

Edited September 1, 2020 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[rolket97]

It's pretty amusing here to see all these wannabe desktop gamers who've probably not done any flying other than sitting in an airline seat claim that they know more about aerobatics than real-world fighter pilots and those who fly restored warbirds. 

[Cavalier]

17 minutes ago, rolket97 said:

It's pretty amusing here to see all these wannabe desktop gamers who've probably not done any flying other than sitting in an airline seat claim that they know more about aerobatics than real-world fighter pilots and those who fly restored warbirds. 

You must be new around here. A large portion of this community are pilots. Your post is unwarranted and unproductive.

48 minutes ago, III/JG52_Otto_-I- said:

Are you serious??  ..If you are not able to anticipate what maneuver you will do when you engage in a dogfight against a enemy, you are not a good pilot. 
We the old school virtual pilots are able to anticipate to the enemy maneuvers most of the time, and when we do it, we won the combat. It work the same in the real life.

I honestly can't tell whether or not you're trolling...

[gx007]

Keep it the same. 

[No.23_Gaylion]

It seems absurd to be able to black out in WWI kites. 

 

But what do I know.

[BraveSirRobin]

8 minutes ago, US93_Talbot said:

It seems absurd to be able to black out in WWI kites. 

 

But what do I know.

 

So you're saying that you think the wings are currently too strong in the WW1 aircraft?