G-resistance of the virtual pilot - opinions and discussion

[AndyJWest 2515]

What does the GIB call the driver?

[3./JG15_Kampf 181]

On 8/31/2020 at 7:53 PM, 69th_Panp said:

 

On 8/31/2020 at 7:53 PM, 69th_Panp said:

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

I also agree with that. I fly a lot of fw 190 and as we don't feel the forces like a real pilot, it gets very frustrating to make a sudden movement, see the screen darkening, return the stick to neutral immediately, and even then the pilot goes into blackout

Edited September 3, 2020 by 3./JG15_Kampf

[216th_LuseKofte 3675]

All I read about g forces from pilots perspective. They just said during dogfights they soon just wished it was over, even if it meant they got shot down (probably a exaggeration due to hindsight) 

But they just found endless g turns was both painful and exhausting. 
I simply do not relate to the constant blackouts compared to the pilot biographies and interviews I read and seen. 
I find a simulation of uncomfortable action  is difficult. We will not have the real thing. 
In my point of view, what we have is at least fair. It prevent unrealistic flying and exploration of weaknesses in game engine / fm. You get somehow a more realistic playground/ total picture. 
If the border is stretched we will get a more arcadish gameplay

[KoN_ 405]

Not 100% sure , pull a maneuver and goes straight into black out seems for me there is NO gradual increase of G-forces .

Or No sense of a blackout is coming , For me anyhow i don't see red-outs or grey-outs . ?? or its very very limited . 

Frustrating to be honest . But i am quite heavy handed on joystick with hard center . 

But then again i hear quite a few comments online where blackout just comes on while dogfighting . 

Fly a Yak7 - Yak1b and i can perform any type of maneuver with hardly any blackouts i can  throw that thing around . 

Got to page two of this thread and the childish insults had already started . lol . 😡

On 8/31/2020 at 7:02 PM, VBF-12_Esco said:

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.

Is there Red out . ive never seen it . 

On 9/1/2020 at 7:09 AM, HR_Zunzun said:

In my opinion, the general system is very good and solid, has a good research behind it and seems plausible to me. I have nonetheless a couple of concerns in some specific situations.

1- Others has already pointed to the problem with the light tolerance to negative forces. Specially the push-pull cycle.

2- The onset of black out in quick maneouvers in planes with light stick forces (spits, tempests, yaks...) is too quick: Although you can learn to be very gentle with the stick (and also helps a long joystick at home plus applying negative trim) I think that the problem arises by the human-machine interface. At home, we do not have the sensorial feedback that you would have in the real plane. First, you do not fly oblivious of the G forces you are sustaining until you start greying out. Even something like 1,5G is very notorious to your body. The other thing is the lack of feed back from the joystick. At the typical speeds in which you can black out, the stick forces increases and, in real life, you have the sensorial feedback of the force you need to apply to achieve them. Again, unless you have a force-feed back joystick, you are completely unaware of it.

The sum result is that, for example, you could be maneovuring at 2.5-3G but, unless you look at the G meter, you won´t realize of it in the game (with experience you can start guessing it). Then you react to a movement of the enemy and apply a bit of a movement (sometimes a flicker of your wrist) and, in those planes with light stick forces, you will, most likely, black out without remission.

I think that the dev should either tone down a bit the onset of the g-lock or add cues (visual or acuistic) to help us better cope with them.

Spot on . 

Edited September 4, 2020 by KoN_

[US63_SpadLivesMatter 830]

Just increase the limit a tiny bit after every successful sortie.

 

Then reset it at the start of each new V-life.

[SCG_FeuerFliegen 126]

One thing I've heard mentioned about the G model-

 

Some planes have the pilot sit in a position where they are halfway laying down, or their legs are almost straight, as opposed to other fighters that the pilot is comparatively sitting upright like in a normal chair.  The Fw190 is one example of the former, and the Spitfire is one example of the latter.  I would love it if this also played a role in the sim, as it would (and did) have an effect in real life.

[TX-Zigrat 75]

To test my theory I added a poll in the "polls" section; I encourage you all to vote in it as well

 

 

[Jason_Williams 25805]

2 minutes ago, TX-Zigrat said:

To test my theory I added a poll in the "polls" section; I encourage you all to vote in it as well

 

 

Not helpful and counter productive.

 

Jason

[TX-Zigrat 75]

Jason, I respect it is your game, your rules I am satisfied that you have read the thread and appreciate that the polls results do not necessarily reflect that 2/3 of your customers believe that the current model is an ideal solution with no additional refinement needed.

 

[dprumph33 12]

The issue of whether or not to set the model to an intermediate pilot or ace pilot seems a little bit silly to me.  If you have both models available to you and presumably others in between why not just make it a configurable setting?  Rather than just lock it in to one or the other?  There will always be arguments for both, so why not just implement it in such a way as to allow both camps to be happy?

 

You could make it a setting that can be changed during loadout like any other plane option for quick missions.  For careers or scripted campaigns you could have it slowly increase throughout as the pilot gains experience.   Multiplayer servers would be able to choose how it was implemented there.  For example, there could be different levels that you reach by accruing fly time in the server without dying or everyone could just be set to ace--it would be up to the server.

 

The other concerns that players have brought up seem to be more along the lines of "needs fixing."   

 

The alternating back and forth between positive and negative Gs.

 

Negative Gs in general.

 

AI interaction with the blackout system compared to human interaction.

 

These are the areas that really need "fixing".  The model is just a personal preference issue and can be resolved by simply making it a setting.

[69th_Didney_World 593]

The only gripe I have with the current G-load system is "Pilot Tiredness".

 

I don't know if it's realistic or not. But it does affect my gameplay on the MP servers where I can actively and aggresively fight realistically only 1 enemy fighter. After that engaging with any other contacts becomes a rather precarious affair as the "tiredness" can set in at any g-pull at any moment.

 

The fact that I can take 5 or 10 minutes of resting time just doing some leisure straight line flying between these aggressive encounters has pretty much no effect. If I engage another enemy the tiredness effects are the same as if I didn't take any rest.

 

So, if there's a 'timer' for the restoration of the pilot's resistance please let us know what it is? Or maybe shorten it a bit?

 

But if the current model is realistic then I stand corrected.

 

edit: grammar.

 

Edited September 4, 2020 by Didney_World

[Gambit21 5279]

On 8/31/2020 at 12:32 PM, 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.

 

Worth repeating.

This is where I sit on the matter.

 

We lack real world sensory input and this would make it easier to ride the line as it were.

[Raptorattacker 2368]

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

Worth repeating.

This is where I sit on the matter.

 

We lack real world sensory input and this would make it easier to ride the line as it were.

Same here!

[Monksilver 182]

15 hours ago, Gambit21 said:

We lack real world sensory input and this would make it easier to ride the line as it were.

 

I found a video that shows that a solution to the lack of real sensory input could be on the way. I don't know how to post the video here but here is the link to it.

 

https://i.imgur.com/AL17YP5.gifv

 

Probably needs a much better harness than the guy in the video but it has potential. Should be amazing for immersion if you have the room and can afford it. Mind you the way this guy spins around it is probably a very good way to spray your walls with vomit.

 

Edited September 5, 2020 by Monksilver

[flynvrtd 49]

The only adjustment I would suggest, is to look at making the radical negative G moves induce a more severe physical penalty.

 The dolphin diving i see on a pretty regular basis is sad.

[Noisemaker 86]

2 hours ago, Monksilver said:

 

I found a video that shows that a solution to the lack of real sensory input could be on the way. I don't know how to post the video here but here is the link to it.

 

https://i.imgur.com/AL17YP5.gifv

 

Probably needs a much better harness than the guy in the video but it has potential. Should be amazing for immersion if you have the room and can afford it. Mind you the way this guy spins around it is probably a very good way to spray your walls with vomit.

 

That's great until the shitty HDMI connector falls out of your monitor during a hard manoeuvrer.

[Monksilver 182]

15 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

That's great until the shitty HDMI connector falls out of your monitor during a hard manoeuvrer.

 

That would be a really cool feature as it would be replicating the effect of blacking out from pulling too many Gs 

[ACG_Smokejumper 275]

Instead of having all pilots the same maybe make body shape options.

 

Smaller pilot can pull more G for longer but suffers with stick forces and lower hit points.

Larger pilot, more hit points and stronger stick force ability but blacks out earlier than smaller pilot.

[=RvE=Windmills 335]

It feels like G limits could perhaps be a bit higher, maybe 1/2G across the board, but the bigger issue by far is that people can go negative G and make extremely violent manoeuvres with almost no negative effect.

 

Its hard to even pull enough negative G to start affecting you, let alone actually impair your flying.

[ACG_Smokejumper 275]

On 8/31/2020 at 11:09 PM, HR_Zunzun said:

Again, unless you have a force-feed back joystick, you are completely unaware of it.

The sum result is that, for example, you could be maneovuring at 2.5-3G but, unless you look at the G meter, you won´t realize of it in the game (with experience you can start guessing it). Then you react to a movement of the enemy and apply a bit of a movement (sometimes a flicker of your wrist) and, in those planes with light stick forces, you will, most likely, black out without remission.

I think that the dev should either tone down a bit the onset of the g-lock or add cues (visual or acuistic) to help us better cope with them.

 

 

Even with FFB you don't feel it. BoX doesn't do force feedback that well. There is no shudder before a stall. Barely feel when you fire weapons and the control stiffen up at low speeds. You do not feel speed gradients sadly.

 

Compared to Cliffs of Dover it's not good. In Cliffs I feel recoil, I know what speed I'm traveling at. I know when I'm about to stall. All from feel. Same in DCS.

 

FFB in BoX also shows how weird the FM is for the Mig3 and SpitIV. Weird flutter in the elevator.

On 9/1/2020 at 2:26 AM, Audgisil said:

Why not have a selectable option such as "pilot fitness"? It would be similar to when you choose novice or ace for the AI in a quick battle. Only this option changes the parameters for your virtual pilot. Your virtual "novice" isn't going to have the same level of experience  or practiced techniques in dealing with high G loads and is going to be more prone to blacking out.

 

In fact, this could also be extended to adjustments in plane visibility and spotting, depending on how it's implemented of course. So, the novice pilot isn't going to be as good at this either - i.e. making it harder to see enemy aircfaft.

 

In multiplayer servers, these selectable options could be disabled to force equality in spotting and pilot fitness. For single player career mode, this option could be selected at the beginning of a campaign and improve over time based on factors such as number of aircraft shot down, sucessful missions, etc. You could start out as a rookie pilot and develop into an ace - in terms of spotting ability and fitness. This would allow us to better simulate things like being a barely trained Luftwaffe pilot during Bodenplatte or the absolute ace waging a one-man war over the Steppes of Russia.

 

"Fitness" could also be tied to wound recovery in the single player campaigns. A pilot who has "recovered" from his wounds might still need a week or two (or even more) regain his previous level of fitness. For example, think about the effect that his head wound may have had on von Richtofen during World War I.

 

 

I like your ideas here. I think you and I are on the same page. It would be great to have different pilot abilities.

 

Different strength to help with stick force at high speed, body size which affects G tolerance. Eye sight I don't like. We all see different already and our PC's all have different capability.

[BlitzPig_EL 2633]

Whatever G force changes happen, they HAVE to be the same for everyone.  No sense wasting effort on multiple body types, as a "best" type will emerge soon enough, and no one will bother with the poorer choice.

 

[ACG_Smokejumper 275]

57 minutes ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Whatever G force changes happen, they HAVE to be the same for everyone.  No sense wasting effort on multiple body types, as a "best" type will emerge soon enough, and no one will bother with the poorer choice.

 

 

 

There is no poorer choice.

 

Big boy can crank the stick harder for faster aileron rolls and can pull out harder. More hit points. Downside, lights out first. Pros and Cons.

 

Depends on your play style and aircraft choice. A bomber pilot might appreciate a stronger pilot with more HP and in a 109 I'd like to be able to work ailerons harder and if it means I might sleep a bit earlier, fine.

Edited September 6, 2020 by ACG_Smokejumper

[LukeFF 6141]

Not a chance in the world they are going to do multiple G-Force models for multiple body types. That's just a huge can of worms that no one wants to deal with in their right mind. 

 

That, and variable hit points? That's a huge No Thanks. 

Edited September 7, 2020 by LukeFF

[VA_chikinpickle 30]

I am uninformed on the subject to be honest but I have no issues with the current G modeling system. I think there should be more consequences for abusing your pilot with alternating negative and positive Gs however. Such manuevers seem unrealistic and eliminating them may improve other aspects of the game.

[[DBS]Browning 919]

The current system may not exactly match the average pilot, but I think most would agree that it falls within the range of g tolerance for humans, so I'm happy. 

[69th_Mobile_BBQ 692]

So the question I have is:  

 

How many people (especially in Allied Planes) take all their turns at full throttle or just leave the throttle wide open all the time?  

The reason I ask is, is it a G-modelling problem or a piloting problem? 

 

I mean I can take most of these planes right to near blackout and sustain it for 20+ seconds by smoothly controlling the throttle and stepping into the turn with the right amount of rudder in coordination with the turn.   

I've asked other players if they do this and often times the answer is that they just "floor it" and pull elevator after banking the plane at the angle they want to turn.  

 

[EAF19_Marsh 799]

Quote

The Fw190 is one example of the former, and the Spitfire is one example of the latter.

 

The Spitfire, like several RAF fighters, had 2 sets of rudder foot rests: a lower one for standard flying with the pilot more vertical and a higher one so that the pilot could recline with his legs up in order to brace better the body for g.  Once again, it is not that simple..

 

[Aurora_Stealth 157]

On 9/4/2020 at 4:50 PM, SCG_FeuerFliegen said:

One thing I've heard mentioned about the G model-

 

Some planes have the pilot sit in a position where they are halfway laying down, or their legs are almost straight, as opposed to other fighters that the pilot is comparatively sitting upright like in a normal chair.  The Fw190 is one example of the former, and the Spitfire is one example of the latter.  I would love it if this also played a role in the sim, as it would (and did) have an effect in real life.

 

@SCG_FeuerFliegen

 

Already raised this as a suggestion last month.

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/767-thread-to-gather-your-suggestions/?do=findComment&comment=99111

 

Rick Volker recognised and mentioned this specifically in his experience with the flat seating angle on the Bf 109 G, I'll try and find the article. He's a well respected aerobatics pilot and has flown a few warbirds including the Spitfire IX and others on top of aerobatics aircraft. I think the Fw 190 is not as flat a seating angle as on the '109 due to the cowling of the radial engine sitting higher - which dictates how flat the pilot can sit in order to see over the nose.

 

Still - it is a thing - it does have an effect and is recognised in aircraft seating today. Having worked in development and testing of aircraft seating including crash testing / 16g dynamic loads this forms part of how G-forces and head injury criteria (HIC) testing is calculated. However it wasn't well understood in the 30's, the Bf 109 had a very flat seating angle due to Messerschmitt's obsession with having a low profile fighter. In other words minimising drag from any elements such as the canopy (bubble canopies produce turbulence / drag behind the curved shape) - thus the pilot had to be seated low to keep everything tightly tucked into the fuselage profile.

 

This will also affect other aircraft such as the Fw 190 though, to varying degrees.

Edited September 7, 2020 by Aurora_Stealth

[Goffik 193]

Just wanted to say that I'm happy to see the devs trying to gauge the actual opinion of their community, rather than simply reacting to the vocal minority. People are always quicker to complain then compliment, which means issues posted on forums are often skewed towards the negative and give the impression that everyone wants change. This poll is a great example of that, given the amount of criticism there's been about the physiology system... yet it seems most are actually fine with it as it is.

 

Of course I realise that even polls only get the views of those actually visiting the forums... the silent majority who are happily playing the sim without ever joining it's community won't have a say. (But then, I guess they're not interested in having a say, otherwise they'd join the community!) However, this is still a marked improvement over what happens with most sims/games, in which developers make knee jerk reactions to what turns out to be a minority of complaints.

[HR_Zunzun 206]

10 minutes ago, Goffik said:

Just wanted to say that I'm happy to see the devs trying to gauge the actual opinion of their community, rather than simply reacting to the vocal minority. People are always quicker to complain then compliment, which means issues posted on forums are often skewed towards the negative and give the impression that everyone wants change. This poll is a great example of that, given the amount of criticism there's been about the physiology system... yet it seems most are actually fine with it as it is.

 

Of course I realise that even polls only get the views of those actually visiting the forums... the silent majority who are happily playing the sim without ever joining it's community won't have a say. (But then, I guess they're not interested in having a say, otherwise they'd join the community!) However, this is still a marked improvement over what happens with most sims/games, in which developers make knee jerk reactions to what turns out to be a minority of complaints.

 

I am too happy to see that the devs are trying to gauge the actual opinion of their community. I do not agree you in the sense that poll results (without giving informed answers) means much (specially whether the system is correct or not).

The silent majority doesn´t neccesarily have to be a happy one. But again, it doesn´t matter whether they/we are happy or not. What matters is that the system represent the reality and is reasonably implemented in a game.

Edited September 7, 2020 by HR_Zunzun

[blue_max 131]

I was in the camp of making the g-limit higher, but after reading this thread I changed my mind. Although I wouldn't mind it being a bit higher, indeed my main problem (as described by others here) is the really rapid onset of a blackout, so that I have no chance of recovering or calibrating. That seems unrealistic. In the real world I'd feel something, so I would know how far I can pull my stick before I black out. In the sim it's just, BAM you're out. It would be better to have a more gradual onset (or some other solution) so that we can fly closer to the edge of the g-force envelope. Thanks for the discussion everyone, I learned a lot!

[Goffik 193]

2 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

I am too happy to see that the devs are trying to gauge the actual opinion of their community. I do not agree you in the sense that poll results (without giving informed answers) means much (specially whether the system is correct or not).

 

I didn't say a poll is the be-all and end-all of a discussion. I merely said that it is a marked improvement over taking a few vocal complaints on a forum as the "view of the whole community", and instantly making changes like some devs do.

 

2 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

But again, it doesn´t matter whether they/we are happy or not. What matters is that the system represent the reality and is reasonably implemented in a game.

 

In one way I agree, but in another I don't. I am generally of the belief that sims should focus on realism as much as possible, even if that means making them "difficult" to play. But at the same time you do have to keep your customers happy, otherwise they will not buy your sims and will not recommend them to their friends. Sometimes a compromise is necessary between realism and usability, for the sake of expanding your playerbase and ensuring you get the funds needed for future product development.

 

(For the record, my votes in both current poles do not conform with the apparent majority view. But that's life... we don't get everything we want, and I'll just go with the flow.)

[MA_Goblin 173]

I voted option 3 because of the lack of technical implementation.

With this I mean that the position the pilot is in should affect the amount of G possible to withstand. As an example some German planes had a more reclined pilot-position (Fw190 is one) and thus more G resilient than a Spitfire.

[SharpeXB 1066]

My alter ego pilot is not a 50+ year old guy who wears bifocals. 
And I think the skill level of the avid gamer equates to “expert” compared to real life WWII some of which were barely trained. Also gamers have decades of “experience” whereas the real war only lasted a few years. Basically gamers are way better than most real pilots ever were.

 

So I vote for “ace” abilities. Both for human players and AI.

Edited September 7, 2020 by SharpeXB

[AnPetrovich 2519]

On 9/1/2020 at 8:35 PM, TP_Sparky said:

There is also a phase where vision is lost yet you're conscious (this doesn't seem to be in BoX?) and you should be able to manipulate the aircraft without being able to see.

Yes, the current G-model has this phase.

[AnPetrovich 2519]

On 9/2/2020 at 10:28 PM, CSW_Hot_Dog said:

In the game right now, we have data acquired from relaxed pilot in centrifuge not controling G-Load himself and therefore resultin to weaker G-Tollerance than real pilot in warbird during fight. Furthermore behind PC we dont have such good and intuitive feedback like in real plane...

Not exactly.
Yes, I based on the well known chart with 5.0-5.4 G as a midrange, but I have increased this limit up to 6.5 G in the game taking into account AGSM. 

[HR_Zunzun 206]

3 hours ago, Goffik said:

 

I didn't say a poll is the be-all and end-all of a discussion. I merely said that it is a marked improvement over taking a few vocal complaints on a forum as the "view of the whole community", and instantly making changes like some devs do.

I think this devs haven´t done this on the premises of voicing out. As annoying as those few vocal complaints could be, they always require some hard data that support the "voices".

 

3 hours ago, Goffik said:

In one way I agree, but in another I don't. I am generally of the belief that sims should focus on realism as much as possible, even if that means making them "difficult" to play. But at the same time you do have to keep your customers happy, otherwise they will not buy your sims and will not recommend them to their friends. Sometimes a compromise is necessary between realism and usability, for the sake of expanding your playerbase and ensuring you get the funds needed for future product development.

Basically we were saying the same. I understand the pressure impose by the market (very small this one). I will be happy if the devs continue to trying to content everybody by giving options (like the use of mouse. Open the sim to user without even joystick but let the rest limit it if wanted).

[AnPetrovich 2519]

On 9/3/2020 at 6:50 AM, TX-Zigrat said:

I am glad that the developers are soliciting  input from the community, but I do have a little concern about response bias (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Response_bias) based on the phrasing of the survey questions. I am admittedly biased myself by I think that we might have very strong responses to these three questions:

 

Q1) Do you think the addition of the G-resistance model was a big improvement for IL-2? (forecast:  survey says yes)

 

Q2) Do you think the current model  is good, but could be improved by better accounting for negative G effects and the rapid "push-pull maneuver" which is oftentimes currently used as an evasive tactic? (forecast: overwhelming yes)

 

Q3) Do you think the current model is good, but could be improved by better modeling the "functional buffer" as described by Floppy_sock on this thread? This would decrease the "rapidness" of initial GLOC onset for a "fresh" pilot but retain most of the other effects of the current model. (forecast: majority yes)

 

The concern is that due to the phrasing of the current survey, a significant majority appear to indicate that the current model is ideal and could not use some subtle refinement.. but I think some of this survey result is due to the way in which the questions were asked...

 

Agree.
That's why I have been asked to read this thread before we will make any conclusion on subject.
Don't worry.

[Cpt_Siddy 1388]

By no mean meant to offend anyone but...Change g-force model so that things happening in the video below is not longer the "HIGHEST LEVEL OF PILOTAGE" available in this game when flying defensive.

 

 

 

After this, we can tackle the more subtle problems this game has...

 

5 hours ago, SharpeXB said:

My alter ego pilot is not a 50+ year old guy who wears bifocals. 
And I think the skill level of the avid gamer equates to “expert” compared to real life WWII some of which were barely trained. Also gamers have decades of “experience” whereas the real war only lasted a few years. Basically gamers are way better than most real pilots ever were.

 

So I vote for “ace” abilities. Both for human players and AI.

 

 

HAHA no

 

Sitting in your chair, safe at home wont make you good at flying real plane. You can get down the tactics and some experience if you go to great lengths in handicapping yourself.

Going VR so you have to actually check 6 and not just have an owl neck Track IR easy mode. VR has a setero vision and builds awareness in your cockpit and not your bedroom without pants looking at screen. Having some sort of force feedback and motion system for your chair to simulate the uncomfortable plane juttering and stick forces...

 

With that and about 5000 dollar investment in you can get a passing simulator that would actually start to train you as a pilot... 

Sitting in well made sim chair with all the bells and whistles in VR counts as exercise, you will sweat and get physically taxed as you look around and wrangle the stick and the plane trying to throw you from one side to the other.  And even then it only scratches the surface of what the real deal is, with all the fear of death going along with it. 

 

There is a very good reason why real gun cam footage NEVER showed a bull poo that is video above, and the most common MP evasive you can find the "aces" to do... 

Edited September 7, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[AnPetrovich 2519]

27 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

Change g-force model so that  s****t happening in the video is not longer the "HIGHEST LEVEL OF PILOTAGE" available in this game when flying defensive.

You have posted a video that made an year before the G-model was changed, including the addition of the motion sickness effect.
Make some new please.