Jump to content

pilot tiredness throughout the length of the flight


Recommended Posts

I love this game.

 

The fact that I played this game pretty much every day for the past 3 years and accumulated.. 1,900 hours in it, own every possible DLC/plane, etc.. I don't think I need to prove anything there.

 

So, lend a guy your eyes for 2 minutes and let's talk about the Immersion.

 

VR is my de-facto standard for any sim games as it delivers the best possible, and subsequently, personally required immersion factor. The IL2 speaks volumes to the WW2 atmosphere in its Campaign design, the scripted campaigns focused on specific battles through out the second world war. The music, the sounds, the visuals, the maps, airplanes, what have you, all of it creates that elusive "je n'ais ce quoi" that continues to magnetize and pull you & me in to the magic of the title.

 

The latest awesome rework of the G-force modeling on the pilot's physiology speaks volumes to the amount of research, testing, and development that goes in to creating the zest of this game.

 

But, and it's a big BUT in my opinion, one shall not forget that we are not playing the Red Bull races of the WW2. To retain the aforementioned magnetism it would be the best not to lose the attention to  the player's immersion that brought him/her to this title to begin with. And here I'm specifically talking about the latest G-force modeling.

 

  • Yes, it's backed up by the empirical data
  • Yes, it's realistic

 

This topic is not about G modeling.

 

But what about all other elements that can, and ultimately, do affect the pilot's performance during the flight to/from the combat area? I believe now is the chance to expand on the Realism factor of IL2, or at least give it a proper analysis to possibly consider some additional elements that retain and add to the immersion, which, frankly, ~99% of us are after. Because without them .. well.. something falls short.

 

The below are just the points for a dialog, nothing more, nothing less.

 

- Pilot tiredness and subsequently his response to maneuvering throughout the flight:

 

1) effect of the open cockpit on the pilot

2) the effects of the altitude and the speed of ascend/descend

3) engine vibration

4) the amount of fumes the engine produces within the timeframe
5) the cockpit temperature that can stiffen or relax the pilot

I'm not asking for some nebulous ideas here, but a realistic assessment of what these guys went through when flying the warbirds and what they were capable of when faced with an enemy.

 

There are A LOT of WW2 scholars here, you guys have read a ton of material about the pilot's lives during those times and I'm sure you can bring something important in to light.
 

\/

Peace

DW.

 

 

Edited by 69th_Didney_World
grammah
  • Like 2
  • Confused 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

By the time 99.99% of virtual pilots are done with their mission, real world pilots were 1/3 of the way or less to their target area.

 

The total ingress/egress times across the channel on the Normandy map will equal the max stick-time/single mission tolerance for a great many pilots here.

 

What I’m saying is, we don’t fly for long enough for the type of fatigue you’re speaking of to rear it’s head - generally speaking. P-47 pilots considered the flight from A-84 to the Hurtgen area (40 min or so) short - they were fresh as daisies after 40 min - yet it’s a slog for your average PC pilot. 

 

Even when you're talking about guys flying for hours and hours in real life - adrenaline goes a long ways when bandits are called out.

 

 

That’s not even touching on the WAY too many variables for the sim, aircraft types, map temps, altitude, time, pilot experience, etc etc.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

guys flying for hours and hours

 

True,  no argument there. But if this simulation strives to deliver the atmosphere there can be some artificially induced impactors to convey the realities of war. Meaning,  if you're 10 minutes away from the target,  then potentially you have flown 3 hours before getting there... or something like that.  I know it's laughable and difficult to explain,  but that'd represent the actual reality of the mission,  etc,  i.e. it could be explained in the briefing,  etc.  

 

Point is to develop these "impactors" and leave them to the mission makers on whether to use them or not. 

 

 

Edited by 69th_Didney_World
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be totally honest, I would not be a fan of adding more factors which affect pilot performance in IL-2.

 

Yes, it's true that as well as g-forces there are numerous factors that can affect pilots and their ability to fight. The length of the mission, the number of missions flown per day, the amount of time spent on front line duty without a break, the amount of sleep attained the night before... even pilot mood and morale due to the loss of friends, the bombing of hometowns, and all manner of other circumstances.

 

But to try and simulate any of those things, even tiredness due to individual mission length, would be too much in opinion. I don't want anymore artificial limits on the way I fly or conduct myself. I would not find it in any way immersive or fun to fly 20 minutes to a mission area and find my virtual-self impaired because I'm "tired". The new physiology system is excellent and a very worthy addition to the game. But it's different than any of the above because it is an immediate and definitive limit based on the human body. It is not something which accumulates over time and could vary wildly from pilot to pilot based on personal circumstances and personality.

 

I know this is a simulation, but there is always a point at which simulation stops being fun and becomes a chore.

  • Upvote 11
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2020 at 6:35 PM, Goffik said:

The new physiology system is excellent and a very worthy addition to the game.

 

In my opinion the new system in the context of ww2 is way too gamey compared to the previous G model. The devs raised the G limit and it took away the fear from the pilots to do stupid and unrealistic maneuvers.

 

But that's my personal take,  don't judge me.

 

I'm not asking for a change to the current G model,  but simply looking for the realistic war time capabilities or ways to introduce them. 

 

 

 

Edited by 69th_Didney_World
  • Like 1
  • Confused 5
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gambit21 said:

By the time 99.99% of virtual pilots are done with their mission, real world pilots were 1/3 of the way or less to their target area.

 

The total ingress/egress times across the channel on the Normandy map will equal the max stick-time/single mission tolerance for a great many pilots here.

 

What I’m saying is, we don’t fly for long enough for the type of fatigue you’re speaking of to rear it’s head - generally speaking. P-47 pilots considered the flight from A-84 to the Hurtgen area (40 min or so) short - they were fresh as daisies after 40 min - yet it’s a slog for your average PC pilot. 

 

Even when you're talking about guys flying for hours and hours in real life - adrenaline goes a long ways when bandits are called out.

 

 

That’s not even touching on the WAY too many variables for the sim, aircraft types, map temps, altitude, time, pilot experience, etc etc.

I am not average pc pilot then. And that is why I stopped flying online. 
MP contex does not premier pilots spending one hour climbing and a indirect route to outsmart fighters. Just to find a equally patient enemy circeling target area for just as long time hoping for a fat juicy target coming along. 
I could see planes easier now but that is in this contex a disadvantage. 
Problem is. Missions online far too much favor impatience flyers. In Careers I to like semi long missions or varied length some long some short. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, LukeFF said:

I get the feeling that, at this point, @AnPetrovich could plug in the exact physical parameters of a real WWII fighter ace a la Westworld and people would still stay things aren't realistic. 

Just how it is unfortunately. Perception is reality for most people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I get the feeling that, at this point, @AnPetrovich could plug in the exact physical parameters of a real WWII fighter ace a la Westworld and people would still stay things aren't realistic. 

 

you misunderstand my intentions. It's NOT to remove realism, it's to add more.

 

- 30 years ago you played a fly simulator. You thought it was THE BEST graphics in the world and the simulation was uncanny.

- Now look at how things progressed in 30 years. You couldn't have dream about the capability to sit INSIDE the airplane to FLY in it, FIGHT in it.

- But yet, devs add more features, more capability.

 

It's not that it's un-realistic, it's that it could be so much more. And it will be. And in 30 years you'll look in amusement at our current featurset.

 

 

 

 

Edited by 69th_Didney_World
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, LukeFF said:

I get the feeling that, at this point, @AnPetrovich could plug in the exact physical parameters of a real WWII fighter ace a la Westworld and people would still stay things aren't realistic. 

At some point you just chalk up the realization that you can't please everyone and just be content that most people are satisfied. I really enjoy the new physiology. 👍. I actually found it less gamey. Go figure.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

But that's my personal take,  don't judge me. I'm not asking for a change,  but simply looking for the realistic war time capabilities or ways to introduce them.

 

Wow. I was stating my opinion based on what you said in your OP. If you don't want to hear any opinions which counter your own, then seriously... don't post them on public forums.

 

I stand by what I said, I do not want to see things like pilot tiredness and emotional state modelled in my sims. I don't want my personal performance, and therefore my enjoyment, being artificially affected by things that are outside of my control. While I'm sure there are others like yourself who would enjoy such features, I personally don't think they are many and therefore feel the development time should go into features the majority aren't just going to disable immediately.

 

That's my opinion. If the devs go a different way, so be it. I'm not going to throw my toys out of the pram over it. 🤷‍♂️

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, 216th_LuseKofte said:

...And that is why I stopped flying online. 
MP contex does not premier pilots spending one hour climbing and a indirect route to outsmart fighters. Just to find a equally patient enemy circeling target area for just as long time hoping for a fat juicy target coming along. 
...
Problem is. Missions online far too much favor impatience flyers. In Careers I to like semi long missions or varied length some long some short. 

 

There are some servers that are far more rewarding for that kind of mission profile. For example, Finnish lends itself well to it. There is the action-packed frontline, but the rear objectives require some planning and often indirect routes & long flights if you want to get through the fighter cover. Sometimes you get there and there is no fighter cover, sometimes there is. It makes the egress fun also, as they will come for you after being warned that the objective is under attack, but being relatively far from the bases and the front you can often get away. And the dynamic maps gives a sense of purpose to the bombers/attackers.

 

Of course you do what you want with your time, just highlighting it for you in case you'd like to try it again, as I find MP to be the coolest part of the game.

 

Cheers.

 

Ian

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, -332FG-Ian_ said:

Of course you do what you want with your time, just highlighting it for you in case you'd like to try it again, as I find MP to be the coolest part of the game.

 

Thanks man. I am just suffering from major fatigue about internet war games. 
I want to be left alone. 
I am sure I be ok after a major break. Right now I wish for a heavy bomber in fs 2020 I can fly from England to Berlin and back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goffik said:

Wow. I was stating my opinion based on what you said in your OP. If you don't want to hear any opinions which counter your own, then seriously... don't post them on public forums.

 

I'm pretty sure I wasn't asking for your opinion of the new G force model, there is an official thread that contains all of that commentary, so no need to get sour.

 

You like it.  Great. You've made it abundantly clear. 

 

I am asking about the possible and realistic variables that can be introduced to the pilot physiology model, the variables that affect the human performance while he/she is exposed to the elements during the flight. 

 

If you can't come up with any then there is no need to comment how the current G model is perfect and anyone looking outside of the proverbial box is a fool.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

The devs raised the G limit and it took away the fear from the pilots to do stupid and unrealistic maneuvers.

 

True that pilots can hold more G but it's only for few more seconds compare to before this update. You are far from being able to fight like we were doing before the physiology model. If you do "stupid and unrealistic maneuvers", your pilot is still quickly exhausted. And then you take the risk to G lock without black vision. 

Edited by JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

In my opinion the new system in the context of ww2 is way too gamey compared to the previous G model. The devs raised the G limit and it took away the fear from the pilots to do stupid and unrealistic maneuvers.

 

I think you were used to the previous model and need time to adjust. You will soon realize that just because you don't insta-blackout (grossly exagerated in the previous version), it doesn't mean you dont pay the price of "stupid and unrealistic maneuvers".

 

Regarding the main topic, I would not be in favor of adding those factors into IL2. Realism is great but if you really wanna get exhaused from the noise and vibration, then get on a real plane.

  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

@JG300_Faucon @Jade_Monkey  guys, thanks for staying on topic. I'm not doubting the new model, I stated it earlier. I'm looking to expand on it. Just like AnPetrovich explored the angle of the pilot's seat there must be some other factors that impact the performance, and not necessarily the response to g-forces. I.e. heavier controls due to tiredeness...

 

I guess I'm too nebulous with my imagination.. 😄

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I like that the pilot feels and starts to lose clear sight, but completely blacking out at 3 g's seem a little light to me...I can do aerobatics in a Decathlon, and although I do feel the strain, I don't blackout at 3 g's...I do start to feel vertigo at 5+ g's...and have to back off...2 cents...If you are fighting for your life and not grunt breathing in a dogfight, then you weren't taught how to dogfight...American later fliers had a "g" suit....blackout at 3 g's is ridiculous... 

Edited by Thorns1
More reasons
Link to post
Share on other sites

In 190 I regularly blackout at 3Gs unless my pilot is completely fresh. Trying to not blackout in scissors is the biggest challenge for me. 
 

Anyway, I heard that there will be update on pilot’s physiology, where the sitting position will be calculated into G mechanism. Is that correct?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, D3adCZE said:

In 190 I regularly blackout at 3Gs unless my pilot is completely fresh. Trying to not blackout in scissors is the biggest challenge for me. 
 

Anyway, I heard that there will be update on pilot’s physiology, where the sitting position will be calculated into G mechanism. Is that correct?

 

Agreed. I can't do scissors anymore. Or, I can do one or 2, but then the pilot blacks out constantly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dev's, Please review the "G" effect....can't even have a decent dogfight....ridiculous if you hold a 3G turn and blackout...It's not right...love the blur...but to blackout...crazy!  Going to lose some people if you don't give some slack!

 

  • Confused 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Thorns1 said:

Dev's, Please review the "G" effect....can't even have a decent dogfight....ridiculous if you hold a 3G turn and blackout...It's not right...love the blur...but to blackout...crazy!  Going to lose some people if you don't give some slack!

 

This is the best and most detailed physiology modelling of any flight sim, the high majority is really happy with it, lots of testing and data/studies went to making this G modelling which I think its fantastic, now it feels more like if a human is flying ,   AnPetrovich  one of the developer flies a  Yak 52 himself, and flies aerobatics, I do fly them too  2 to 3 times per week, and IMHO what we have its really amazing G modelling, feels realistic.

 

image.thumb.png.47980603f8b24e4abe58b2115f686ae6.png

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Blackout at 3G only occurs if you have recently pulled a LOT of G. The new system seems to penalize consisten time at high G - if you pull onto someone's tail at +7 for 3 seconds you'll be fine, but then try to hold 3.5G as you turn back on to him and you will start to grey out.

It isn't right to grey out at 3.5G, but it is right to grey out at 3.5G after already straining through some serious stuff. You can also black out very quickly if you push/pull on the plane.

I can verify most of this lines up with my acrobat experience, but I've never done push/pull. All in all this is soooo  much better than the old model. High G has always been a matter of time, not really severity - something most sims get wrong.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Thorns1 said:

Dev's, Please review the "G" effect....can't even have a decent dogfight....ridiculous if you hold a 3G turn and blackout...It's not right...love the blur...but to blackout...crazy!  Going to lose some people if you don't give some slack!

 

 

Umm...they've been reviewing the G effects for months on end.

I think you need to review your current "Type/Don't type" decision algorithm.

 

 

  • Haha 3
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, perception is reality for most people. If people perceive something as wrong then it is wrong for them even if the sources say otherwise. I'm not saying I don't do this as well, but when I am 100% wrong about something I'll accept it and alter my view to fit the facts.
I have no experience in a real aircraft so I can't say if the G effect are right or wrong but with the amount of time and the data that the devs went over I'm guessing it's as close as any game has ever been.

While the devs are not right on everything and some things still need work, G model is not one of them imo. They have done a great job on modeling it and imo it's a vast improvement to what we used to have.

Edited by Legioneod
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, D3adCZE said:

In 190 I regularly blackout at 3Gs unless my pilot is completely fresh

 

So we don't have the same game. Strange!

Or it's because you completely exhausted your pilot.

Edited by JG300_Faucon
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

G modeling is a universal thing, basically everyone responds in a similar way.  Fatigue to environmental stimuli ain't, never was, never will.  I could take a 12 hour continuous sortie in a C-141 without batting an eye, ready to run on landing, but a half hour in a Huey would literally be pissing blood with deep fatigue ready to crawl into bed.  How do you model a state for the nuances of every airframe, because they're all different.

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

G modeling is a universal thing, basically everyone responds in a similar way.  Fatigue to environmental stimuli ain't, never was, never will.  I could take a 12 hour continuous sortie in a C-141 without batting an eye, ready to run on landing, but a half hour in a Huey would literally be pissing blood with deep fatigue ready to crawl into bed.  How do you model a state for the nuances of every airframe, because they're all different.

 

you're absolutely right as there is no empirical evidence for modeling the specific aircraft's impact on the pilot.

 

The idea here is to introduce the universal factors. I.e. ambient temperature, noise levels, altitude variations.

 

I understand it's all a pipe dream, but hey.. one can dream, right? 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not unreasonable but I urge you to try to find data which handles the effect on fatigue due to the above factors.  The data sets AnP used for this current G model encompasses hundreds if not thousands of gloc episodes spanning all classes of individuals and exposure profiles.  He has published models which take into account, seating position, g suit, positive pressure breathing, AGSM, amongst others. These are the basis of the current physiology model. To come in here and make claims based on your perception of how things should be with zero basis other than your opinion doesn't lend to your credibility. 

 

I've spent a fair amount of time digging through the literature on the topic and I have yet to see any of those factors considered which means either means the researchers didn't feel it was important enough of consideration with respect to other factors, or it's simply too hard to get good data regarding it. If you're interested in the subject, feel free to parse the sources that the current model is based off:

 

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1dQ3ck6BiJtqNFPUr-f_UiVpEo42EGXgI?usp=sharing

 

So my question to you is - how do you proceed with modeling such factors?

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Floppy_Sock said:

To come in here and make claims based on your perception of how things should be with zero basis other than your opinion doesn't lend to your credibility. 

 

I swear I'll remove my G-forces comment, even though I explicitly stated that it's realistic and I have no beef with it.

 

My goal is after the authenticity. The models can be realistic but can also convey very little of authenticity. This isn't directed at a G force modeling, but at the overall representation of the pilot's physical and psychological state during the mission, dog fight, etc.

 

Obviously there is very little I know or have seen in regards to the the dogfights. The gun-cam footage really is the only viable representation of those times. And when I watch the snippets of that gun footage I simply don't see any resemblance in behavior between our game pilots and what happened in reality. I understand the footage itself represents only the last 5-10 seconds of the fight and quite possibly there may have been a rather serious play of all sorts of crazy maneuvers where in the end the pilot getting shot at simply has no more physical prowess left to do anything else and just absorb the rounds from dead 6. But, also, there may have been no fight whatsoever, etc etc.. 

 

That's the authenticity I'm after.

 

edit:  Even when watching the computer re-enactments of the dog fights, which were based on pilot's memories, don't show any crazy red-bull type of maneuvers.

 

 

Edited by 69th_Didney_World
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, 69th_Didney_World said:

Even when watching the computer re-enactments of the dog fights, which were based on pilot's memories, don't show any crazy red-bull type of maneuvers.

 

Most pilots didn't even see the aircraft that shot them down. I think that there is sometimes a misconception that long protracted "balletic" air to air duels took place in WWII. In reality it was normally the pilot who had the best eyesight or more luck than the poor soul that fell to their guns.

 

We have to remember that many of our "top" sim pilots would not have made it very far in WWII because the real pilots had just one life, lose it and that was it.  

 Most pilots were "very" cautious and many flew dozens of sorties where they saw no action. Sim pilots do not in any real way accurately represent those brave individuals in WWII. They can constantly respawn for one thing.

 

I think the G modelling is about the best we are going to get with the current technology. I know that a massive amount of research and work went into it. 

 

I have always wanted the most realistic experience possible when it comes to flight sims. The rub is that the only way we will ever get something that is 100% realistic or accurate is if we went back in time machine and found ourselves strapped into a WWII aircraft probably moments before getting shot.  

  • Upvote 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

the things u listed like, cabin temperature, 

vibration, seat comfort etc in my opinion have basically no effect on pilots ability to fly his aircraft in combat.

 

once the action starts i'd believe u will not even notice such stuff...

 

this is the way i see it.

imo there is no need to include this stuff in this simulation.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, 6./ZG26_Custard said:

We have to remember that many of our "top" sim pilots would not have made it very far in WWII because the real pilots had just one life, lose it and that was it.  

 Most pilots were "very" cautious and many flew dozens of sorties where they saw no action. Sim pilots do not in any real way accurately represent those brave individuals in WWII. They can constantly respawn for one thing.

 

Exactly! But some Hartmann wannabes don't grasp this fact. In all biographies I have red, no one was like a berserk. They all were very cautious, evaluated the situation

very quickly - some of them instinctively - and only stroke, when they were sure about the situation at its outcome - even Erich Hartmann did this. None of the known

aces were suicidal in any way. That's a fact.

 

And concerning G-LOC, pilot fatigue etc. we all better listen to real pilots - we have some here! - I only trust in their opinion and I'm tired of those hobby combat pilots

claiming some dubious internet sources (how laughable!), which again are based on some dubious sources and finally most of them are not even crosschecked and

verified thoroughly. I only rely on books from serious publishers and/or real pilots. Period.

 

To me, the dev team nailed it now with the recent update.

 

Good evening to all and cheers

Edited by THERION
  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/6/2020 at 3:50 PM, 69th_Didney_World said:

I'm not asking for some nebulous ideas here, but a realistic assessment of what these guys went through when flying the warbirds and what they were capable of when faced with an enemy.

 

There are A LOT of WW2 scholars here, you guys have read a ton of material about the pilot's lives during those times and I'm sure you can bring something important in to light.

 

I don't think any of us truly wants to recreate 'what these guys went through.' We want the abridged version; the 'fun' parts.

 

The real version wouldn't be much fun. The British didn't have much fun from '39 to '42. The Americans had a rough start with the Japanese for the first 6 months of their war. The Russians had very little fun until '43. And the Germans had no fun at all from '44 on.

 

If we really want to get into the nitty-gritty of pilot life, there'd have to be all sorts of variables. A lot of pilots routinely flew drunk or hung over. You might feel a constant itch in your pants after spending nights with women of questionable reputation. Maybe you hate your commanding officer, who chews you out for every little thing. Maybe you got a Dear John letter from back home. Maybe you saw your best friend get shredded to ribbons while hanging in his parachute last week. Maybe the street you grew up in is nothing but a line of charred rubble now. Maybe you've flown 300 sorties and they all run together and they were all for nothing because you've got this nagging feeling your number's up.  

 

Maybe you're so distracted by all of the above, you don't bother to check your six for the three minutes it takes for an enemy to catch up to you, and end your sad little war.

 

Sorry. Had to get a little melodramatic there. But I think you get my point.

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/7/2020 at 12:43 AM, 69th_Didney_World said:

 

In my opinion the new system in the context of ww2 is way too gamey compared to the previous G model. The devs raised the G limit and it took away the fear from the pilots to do stupid and unrealistic maneuvers.

 

But that's my personal take,  don't judge me. I'm not asking for a change,  but simply looking for the realistic war time capabilities or ways to introduce them. 

Completely agree with you. Now ppl can make (again) some crazy maneuvers basicaly without real punishment and super speedy low turn and burn circus is back in MP.

All they needed is to tone down g effects and not to go in the other extreme. They did the same thing with visibility before (from extreme to extreme), but last fix with "middle solution" made a good compromise.

Edited by =VARP=Tvrdi
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no experience of flying a plane so i base my statements on the info in the DD regarding the G force update.

 

If u read the DD they explain very well the reasons behind certain G effects and there is multiple actual tests that the new model is based on.

 

If u trust that the research data is correct, then i see no way how someone could claim that current model is not realistic.

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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
×
×
  • Create New...