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


Whatever will prevent or minimize this type of "defensive" flying, most likely a combination of the push-pull issue as well as reducing those neg G times slightly.

Edited by Krupinskii
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Hi guys,
many of you have mentioned that you want a pilot that is less resistant to negative Gs.

 

This is how the current G-model works on your computers:

 

Neg.G.JPG.efc433bb7cffcdc118cd290e9773b679.JPG


My question is:

are you really sure we need to reduce these numbers?

 

Or maybe you want to get more noticeable pull-push effects?
(like: quicker motion sickness and reduced G+ resistance after G-)

Just quick answer, please:
Yes, these numbers are too long / No, just work on push-pull issue.

 

 

Anything that will reduce the stick jerking is welcome addition.

 

I would go with a feature that, once you push-pull-push, blows up family car, and then kills the family dog and gold fish... but that's just me. 

 

I mean, what is the real reason why WW2 pilots did not do the jerk-o-tango when someone was on their 6? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
22 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

I mean, what is the real reason why WW2 pilots did not do the jerk-o-tango when someone was on their 6? 


They actually did (some users posted quotes from books to the forum).

The real reason for me personally why I don't like to do this in RL - this is pretty unpleasant. Very unpleasant. But still possible. I guess if the choice is: to jerk or to die - I would prefer to jerk.

  • Haha 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AnPetrovich said:


They actually did (some users posted quotes from books to the forum).

The real reason for me personally why I don't like to do this in RL - this is pretty unpleasant. Very unpleasant. But still possible. I guess if the choice is: jerk or die - I would prefer to jerk.

 

Well, there is no unpleasantness for our virtual pilot now, its a free lunch. 

 

And as far as the jerking, did they really do the jerking, or just a sudden pull down? I have a suspicion that there is slight difference of doing one or two do-or-die moves, after which you need lots of time to recover (and possible busted blood vessels in eye and ear) and our current jerk-o-rama. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:


They actually did (some users posted quotes from books to the forum).

The real reason for me personally why I don't like to do this in RL - this is pretty unpleasant. Very unpleasant. But still possible. I guess if the choice is: jerk or die - I would prefer to jerk.

 

In the book Every Man a Tiger, an F-15 or F-16 driver (can’t remember) describes a negative G maneuver which results in helmet against the canopy and much driscomfort, but worked for him.

 

This was close-quarters ACM obviously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_DerSheriff

I remember a I interview with a p-47 as well. It's clear that this is possible. But the extreme wobbling should be really unpleasant. Ideally in concert with a drastically reduced pos fg tolerance 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
4 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

And as far as the jerking, did they really do the jerking, or just a sudden pull down?


Yep, I have read about actually jerking.
You can do this, lets say, just from -2G to +3G and in this case your eye and ear will be fine.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:


Yep, I have read about actually jerking.
You can do this, lets say, just from -2G to +3G and in this case your eye and ear will be fine.

 

Well, then, seeing how effective it is in IL-2, why have this not become standard defensive ACM everywhere? 

 

I am not doubting the sources you read, but among humans, things that work tend to proliferate (its everywhere in IL-2 online). And yet this one trick have remained... how do i say, fairly obscure as far as combat training went IRL. 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Porpoising is the biggest issue but I still think the sudden lights out is too much.

I saw a few Red Bull races where the pilots regularly go from 1 to 9 or 10 G in half a second in a reversal without blacking out. The Spit seems a bit much....

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mitthrawnuruodo
13 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Yep, I have read about actually jerking.
You can do this, lets say, just from -2G to +3G and in this case your eye and ear will be fine.

 

If evidence shows that the maneuver was uncomfortable but not impossible, I think the game should allow it.

 

I want the physiology to be realistic. It should not be used as a game mechanic to limit maneuvers just because they are disliked in multiplayer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focus on push-pull, but Neg G resistance probably should come down a little bit.  Right now it seems like the pilot is unfazed by push-pull, has the Negative G resistance of an aerobatics pilot, and the positive G resistance of an average joe.  Push-pull ought to have some dangerous potential consequences, and porpoising should wear you out pretty quickly- not be something you can just do indefinitely.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, DerSheriff said:

Only push pull regarding neg Gs  However look on the onset rates of pos Gs too 🙃

THIS

Get visibility update soon !!!!🤞🤞🤞

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:

Or maybe you want to get more noticeable pull-push effects?
(like: quicker motion sickness and reduced G+ resistance after G-)

This is the only aspect of the Gs simulation I would like to be addressed, rest is great IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
25 minutes ago, DD_Perfesser said:

I saw a few Red Bull races where the pilots regularly go from 1 to 9 or 10 G in half a second in a reversal without blacking out.


I guess you know that this group of Red Bull pilots is significantly more resistant to high Gs than average (even aerobatic) pilots? And by the way, they use anti-g suits.

  • Confused 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AnPetrovich said:


I guess you know that this group of Red Bull pilots is significantly more resistant to high Gs than average (even aerobatic) pilots? And by the way, they use anti-g suits.

 

But not the average fighter pilot! Both have the best training, but we know military pilots have had the best training money can buy.

Again - pulling G's to impress a spectators/judges and negotiating obstacles verse pull G's to stay alive are very different skill set/mindset.

Where stunt/acrobatic pilots can just abandon a maneuver when it's unsafe, a combat pilots doesn't have the luxury to call of an AAM, SAM or a dogfight LOL

 

Note: Most were former military pilots anyway, thus I would say the same - but advantage combat pilots.

Edited by JG7_X-Man
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

But not the average fighter pilot!

 

Way, WAY more than likely ANY WWII fighter pilot, let alone the average fighter pilot.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Vietkong_Evil
3 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

 

But not the average fighter pilot!

Yes, let´s compare the aerobatic flight hours of a redbull pilot with the average fighter pilot of wwII...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS
26 minutes ago, JG7_X-Man said:

But not the average fighter pilot!

 

Spoiler

 

Sorry, but I think the guys at Red Bull are the best of the best sport pilots. :) This means that they are "slightly" stronger than the "average" fighter pilot in my opinion.

We have only one Russian Red Bull racer - Sergey Rakhmanin. Did you ever hear something about him? I'm sure, not. Because he is not the top one Red Bull pilot, unfortunately.
But he is still two times World Champion of aerobatics in the "Unlimited" class. You can see on this video WHAT does it mean (sorry for bad quality):
 

 

 


 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

 

Way, WAY more than likely ANY WWII fighter pilot, let alone the average fighter pilot.

 

As I was referring to modern fighter pilots - I guess that is kinda off topic. :salute:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

One more good source is here:


G-time.thumb.jpg.25a89f7be995f63772971b6a3209cded.jpg

Any thoughts how this data corresponds to this chart?

unknown.png

 

 

 

@AnPetrovich As I mentioned here in my post above.  The curve that @-=PHX=-SuperEtendard posted is the same one that I posted. I addressed their comparison specifically.

 

This curve is the best fit to only 14 GLOC events.

image.thumb.png.d28d1b1b2dd2bc609acfb797924bad95.png

 

 

 

This curve is the best fit to to 880 GLOC events

 

unknown.png

 

Its data set:

 image.thumb.png.c187f141bd99ea3223a6620aec1eeddd.png

 

 

Edited by Floppy_Sock
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1CGS

Thanks! I have re-read it again.
My only question is: when Whinnery and Forster made this curve based on the Acceleration Onset Rate - what were highest Gs on the studied events of LOC? I'm asking because I can not imagine 9 seconds till G-LOC at 15G, 20G, 30G...
Is this document in public somewhere?.. Thanks in advance!

UPD
Ops, now here is the third chart. Thanks again, I got the answer.

UPD 2:
The next question is: what points on this chart are with anti-g-suit, AGSM, and what are for relaxed individuals?

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

14 minutes ago, AnPetrovich said:

Thanks! I have re-read it again.
My only question is: when Whinnery and Forster made this curve based on the Acceleration Onset Rate - what were highest Gs on the studied events of LOC? I'm asking because I can not imagine 9 seconds till G-LOC at 15G, 20G, 30G...
Is this document in public somewhere?.. Thanks in advance!

UPD
Ops, now here is the third chart. Thanks again, I got the answer.

 

I think Whinnery and Forster's point is that after a certain limit, there is zero blood flow to the brain. Accelerating harder cannot make the blood flow any less - hence the behavior is the same. 

 

This is also why I listed some other studies on loss of consciousness due to near instantaneous circulation cutoff since the mechanism which drives consciousness loss is the same in all. No oxygen to the brain. 

 

This was confirmed here: 

image.png.532fe913e82528926e90b4c57cb19003.png

 

This is from a much older publication. I'm simply showing that short extreme exposures have been tested and confirmed to not cause LOC if the duration is sufficiently short.

 

@AnPetrovich does this download link work for you? https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19.pdf

Edited by Floppy_Sock
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

 

I think Whinnery and Forster's point is that after a certain limit, there is zero blood flow to the brain. Accelerating harder cannot make the blood flow any less - hence the behavior is the same. 

 

This is also why I listed some other studies on loss of consciousness due to near instantaneous circulation cutoff since the mechanism which drives consciousness loss is the same in all. No oxygen to the brain. 

 

This was confirmed here: 

image.png.532fe913e82528926e90b4c57cb19003.png

 

This is from a much older publication. I'm simply showing that short extreme exposures have been tested and confirmed to not cause LOC if the duration is sufficiently short.

 

@AnPetrovich does this download link work for you? https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/2046-7648-2-19.pdf

I have to say that the cover of that report is rad as hell, LMAO!

The Grim Reaper: "HE'S RIGHT #@%$ING THERE! JUST SHOOT HIM! WHERE DID THEY TEACH YOU TO SHOOT!"
Me: hahhaa .50 cal machine guns go dakka

754277922_ScreenHunter_01Sep_1015_49.jpg.3e2097596422f5b88619390e0b637f26.jpg

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop comparing acrobatic planes to war birds. I seldom see acrobatic planes fly at or near mach .7 and then try to pull away from ground or evade gunfire. 

Acrobatic planes experience short strong G's and the pilot can quickly ease off the stick - the G's will ease off. In combat, its do or die, and easing off is often not an option. 

All pilots doing aerobatics know their limits intimately and ease off the G's before they pass out. Virtual pilots have no way of feeling the mental state of our pilot. All we can see is screen going red or black. 

 

 

Also, G-LOC at any G that virtually stops the blood flow is the same, you are running on the glucose and oxygen reserves in your nervous system. It matters little if its 9 G or 29 G for that. Reserves are the same...

What does matter is that state the pilot is in, is he tired and such - The available reserves. Heighten stress increases G tolerance (to sharp G increases) by raising blood pressure in cardiovascular system, but it wont make your cells work if they cant manage to generate action potential to fire a synapse. 

 

The biggest gripe i have with current system is not the positive G tolerance of pilots (tho sometimes the recovery time from G lock is needlessly long), its the fact that plane lacks inertia. 

The fact that you can snap your wing in Tempest by pulling hard at speed is already telling, that there is lack of inertia in this game. The fact that you can jerk your stick like a chimp and not stall your plane is another sign that there is something fishy with inertia. And getting plane from stall to spin is so rare i've never got to even do a spin recovery in this game, and i got thousands of hours of game time. 

Historically, trashing your plane around like a chimp could led in ammo belt feed issues and introduce air bubbles in to lines. The WW2 planes were fickle and unforgiving creatures. Flying them rough could end up in mechanical failure. 

The defensive flying that is in vogue on multiplayer servers would not fly in real world for many reason, pilots being smashed all over cabin being just one of them. 

And the more people encounter this "meta game" defensive flying, the broader it spreads. As long as there is 0 penalty for it, 0 risk for it, then yeah, people will trash around their planes without worry in the world. 


Now, it may be true that there were instances where people jerked around their planes when it was do or die. But  i've never seen this kind of desperation from any guncam footage i've watched, and there the planes were shot at. And this move was, as far as i know, never in wide spread use in real war.

 

In MP however, It is standard modus operandi for forcing overshoot or evading fire while your wingman comes to your help. This style of flying is especially effective against anything with no cannons, as AP bullets, unless hitting pilot or something critical, usually don't degrade your planes performance from few hits here and there. You can still get home and even fight for a short while. 

 

How to solve this? I don't know, but surely there must be *some* negative effects for what amounts to a pilots being in 1500 horse powered tumble drier? 

17 minutes ago, RedKestrel said:

I have to say that the cover of that report is rad as hell, LMAO!

The Grim Reaper: "HE'S RIGHT #@%$ING THERE! JUST SHOOT HIM! WHERE DID THEY TEACH YOU TO SHOOT!"
Me: hahhaa .50 cal machine guns go dakka
 

 

 

Maybe its because you are shooting with .50 cals 😄

 

Anyhow, its funny how me and sock went both there "if blood don't flow, it wont matter how much more you stop it "  at the same time 😄

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

The defensive flying that is in vogue on multiplayer servers would not fly in real world for many reason, pilots being smashed all over cabin being just one of them. 

And the more people encounter this "meta game" defensive flying, the broader it spreads. As long as there is 0 penalty for it, 0 risk for it, then yeah, people will trash around their planes without worry in the world. 


Now, it may be true that there were instances where people jerked around their planes when it was do or die. But  i've never seen this kind of desperation from any guncam footage i've watched, and there the planes were shot at. And this move was, as far as i know, never in wide spread use in real war./...

 

...\ How to solve this? I don't know, but surely there must be *some* negative effects for what amounts to a pilots being in 1500 horse powered tumble drier? 

 

The video posted by AnPetrovich above gave me an idea how to help solve this behaviour.  We already have (admittedly controversial from what I've read on the forum) head shake as an option.  What if the normal flight head shake was turned down, but extreme G manoeuvrers introduced unavoidable head position and orientation changes due to the G forces involved?  Obviously a trained pilot locks onto a point with their eyes that they can reference while pulling off such a manoeuvrer, and we can do the like whether in 2D or VR, but it will take quite some getting used to the rapid orientation change as a result of sudden high G or rapidly changing G manoeuvrers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Noisemaker said:

The video posted by AnPetrovich above gave me an idea how to help solve this behaviour.  We already have (admittedly controversial from what I've read on the forum) head shake as an option.  What if the normal flight head shake was turned down, but extreme G manoeuvrers introduced unavoidable head position and orientation changes due to the G forces involved?  Obviously a trained pilot locks onto a point with their eyes that they can reference while pulling off such a manoeuvrer, and we can do the like whether in 2D or VR, but it will take quite some getting used to the rapid orientation change as a result of sudden high G or rapidly changing G manoeuvrers.

 

Any kind of head movement in VR that is not in sync with the helmet will be 100% projectile vomit.:rofl:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

Any kind of head movement in VR that is not in sync with the helmet will be 100% projectile vomit.:rofl:

 

Kind of my point actually.  Takes some getting used to.  ;)

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@AnPetrovich

 

As to your second update, I believe that was addressed in the paper in the following figure:

 

image.thumb.png.0bf156049e38c9bf9071b27e843f5090.png

 

As his data sets contained a wide variation of subjects from different backgrounds as well as both protected (AGSM/Gsuit/reclined seat) and relaxed testing, the conclusion he came to was that only the tail varies as the protection measures change. This is indicated in a. above by the different dotted tails. 

Edited by Floppy_Sock
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...