Jump to content

blackout


Lolrawr
 Share

Recommended Posts

=FSB=HandyNasty
27 minutes ago, Lolrawr said:

The G difference from the speed difference could play a role in all this, but is ~10% difference that big of a deal? Or should it be?

 

I think it is a non-negligeable part of the explanation for why you did black out and the 109 didn't, together with the initial hard evasive maneuver being penalizing, maybe not immediately, but rather on time scales on the order of a few tens of seconds. I say that based on my understanding of the explanation of the G-model given by An Petrovich in the DD where he gives explanation, combined with my experience flying. (So to be taken with some salt :)).

 

 

19 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Planes with sensitive elevators like the spitfire may appear to have a lower g-tolerance than other planes, but this is only because it is easier for the pilot to pull many g in them easily and quickly with relatively little control input

One of the things i noticed in the track is how gentle Lolrawr is when increasing G load (except the first evasive 'panic' maneuver). It is the first thing I looked at and I am of the opinion that this is not the reason why he blacked out earlier than the 109.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PB0_Roll

Blackout model is cumulative, so a pilot that keeps turning horizontally at high speed will blackout earlier than a pilot who uses the vertical to get less Gs constantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

atcarter714
On 4/8/2021 at 9:08 AM, NIK14 said:

 

This is a game. Made up from 1's and 0's.

 

It's a "simulation" [of reality], to be more precise. And the universe itself is essentially a simulation, written in a programming language we call "physics". Before you call me crazy, just see what some of the greatest scientific minds, quantum physicists and geniuses of our time have to say about this (from the brilliant and popular Neil DeGrasse Tyson to Elon Musk to Will Wright -- the list goes on and on) Atoms are basically a dynamic type of volumetric pixel ("voxel") formed up of tiny sub-components (subatomic particles) with distinct properties and attributes arranged in different configurations. Energy and particles are "just" bits of code too. But simple chunks of code put into complex arrangements can form anything (such as your entire genetic code). Code makes up literally the entire universe around us and governs how everything works within it. If you really look into this, the rabbit hole just goes deeper and deeper. Some scientists even suggest that the mysterious and inexplicable "universal speed limit" (the fact that nothing can exceed the seemingly constant speed of light) is really our first clue that the universe has a "max CPU core clock speed" which is imposing an arbitrary limitation on our reality itself ...

 

Point is, never dismiss something as "just code" or "just ones and zeros". All things are code. And, as a programmer, I see IL-2 Sturmovik as a marvelous and complex masterpiece of modern programming. It's a little universe all of its own that brings a part of our collective human past back to life in a very convincing and entertaining way, and let's us experience it almost a century later from the safety and comfort of a soft chair. War Thunder and Call of Duty are games, but IL-2 is something much different and very special ... 🤨

 

 

Edited by atcarter714
Link to comment
Share on other sites

atcarter714
On 4/4/2021 at 11:31 PM, Lolrawr said:

why do i blackout and the enemy whos fkin behind me and is able to pull a lead never blacks out?

im talking about continuous turn, everyfkinbody just pulls leads out of their asses at 800kph while my pilot grasps for air and goes to sleep

 

wheres the logic? doesn't pulling lead require more Gs? am i wrong? wtf is wrong. 

i feel like im losing every g battle

 

whats wrong with the spitfires? and the fws?

u touch the stick on the spit and its instant bed time, with the fw on the other hand...haha whats G?

 

 

And to answer the OP's question "what's wrong" ... well, you said it yourself ... you're trying to have "G battles" like you're flying an F-14 Tomcat in a B-movie Top Gun knockoff. A "G battle" is not really a valid WWII air combat tactic, and really just sounds like a great way to get yourself killed (over and over and over). While they did prepare pilots to deal with G forces in flight, trying to actually use G forces, human endurance and blackouts as a high stakes gamble of a battle tactic was never taught to or recommended to pilots, lol. There are way more things to do than just try to turn your plane really hard and fast and pray you don't black out.

 

As a Luftwaffe pilot, I generally avoid any long, sustained turning unless I've got a major advantage in energy state (speed + altitude) and can afford it. Normally, I prefer vertical ("looping" type) maneuvers, dives/climbs, climbing turns and other things. Those sorts of moves allow me to stay faster and be more difficult to follow and shoot at. Most Allied planes can out-turn a 109 or 190 with ease, making a turn fight a death sentence, but what they lack in turning the Axis aircraft make up for in other areas (e.g., fast climb rates, high top speeds, high max altitude limits, great dive and "zoom climb" performance on the way back up). I try to make my plane like that little fuzzy ball on a string that's dangled in front of a cat ... each time the cat thinks he can swat it, too quickly it's pulled up high out of his reach where he can't get to it. But even in an Allied plane like a Spitfire, you don't want to just jam the stick back in a hard turn and go round and round till you start blacking out. It might extend your life for the first few seconds, but any decent pilot will then see what you're doing and let you fly right into his crosshairs. You really only want to make a quick, tight turn inside the opponent's radius where he can't follow you, overshoots and allows you to get on his tail. Then, you might force him to do a stupid, sustained turn that makes him an easy target.

 

Generally, when you're running away and trying to escape by using hard maneuvers your opponent (hopefully) can't follow, you're taking way more G forces and stressing your body and airframe more. Your opponent might be 50, 100 or even 200 meters behind you and can just lazily follow whatever you try to do and take an easy deflection shot straight into your canopy. If his propeller was almost touching your tail it'd be different, and he'd have to use the same maneuver and experience the same G forces to maintain his position. But from 100m behind you he totally sees what you're going for and has time to float his gun sights right ahead of where you're about to fly thru. I love it when a Spitfire goes a little too crazy with his turning and just drifts right thru a pre-selected path I've already trained my gunsights on, waiting for him to resort to that one trick he knows yet again. You sound like you're new to IL-2 and you're frustrated because it's difficult and many people online are very skilled. I've been playing on and off for years and know a lot about these planes and those guys still pulverize me sometimes. We've all been there before. Don't blame the sim, just embrace this challenge. Learn about all the planes and their attributes and how to fly each and fight against them all, practice your flying and gunnery and study some real tactics. Stop trying to use "G battles" and just making a sharp turn every time you get in trouble. You've made yourself very predictable and easy to shoot down. Head over to YouTube and watch some good learning videos and practice ...

 

This guy's videos are excellent, and he has them for a lot of different models and variants of both Axis and Allied planes:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
On 4/8/2021 at 12:40 PM, =FSB=HandyNasty said:

 

The G model as we have in IL2 (I'm a fan of it) means that when you're on the defensive, you need not only evade attacks, but also do it in such way that your pilot builds up as low fatigue as possible. For example : A hard split-S at 400kph makes you an exceedingly hard target for an attacker swooping in from above, loses you a certain amount of altitude or velocity, but keep in mind is that performing such maneuver strains your pilot. Each maneuver has immediate repercussions ( = "am I in position to get shot at now?") and repercussions on longer scale (position, velocity and what is of interest here : pilot fatigue).

 

I've had many instances where I chase a plane that pulls maneuvers frantically to avoid me while I don't maneuver all that hard. He does 'good defensive maneuvers' in the sense that i can't get a shot at him, but 'bad defensive maneuvers' fatigue-wise. When I then decide to commit after a while, my pilot is way more fresh than his, and I can flat turn with my Fw190 for 360+ degrees with a tired spitty.

Conversely, when I get shot down in planes that are supposed to be better turners, 50+% of the time it is because I've been evading prior attacks in such way that I've build up more fatigue than my attacker. In a fight, fatigue is a variable to take into account, just like your and enemy's altitude, velocity, plane and other variables. I'd argue that it is one of the more difficult variables to get a good feeling of. Hence many people (me included) that get frustrated at certain situations "How the hell did he pull so many G's? How could he turn with me?", a very possible answer is : your feeling/estimation of (relative) pilot fatigue was wrong. You could only pull X G's, and thought your opponent could only pull the same amount. But you're mistaken, he can actually pull X+1 G's because he's been pulling smoother maneuvers in the last minute compared to you, and voilà, you're done.

 

 

 

I think if they go into such detail (while not ironing out some flaws in the flight model) they should implement adrenalin rush which offsets fatigue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
32 minutes ago, sturmkraehe said:

I think if they go into such detail (while not ironing out some flaws in the flight model) they should implement adrenalin rush which offsets fatigue.

 

If you can find a source documenting such an effect, I'm sure they will. At the moment it's just speculation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
1 minute ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

If you can find a source documenting such an effect, I'm sure they will. At the moment it's just speculation.

I think it is fine when they use scientific documents to support some of their design decisions! Really it is! But I think for the overall design they should definitely NOT rely ONLY on documents. Why? Because not every effect and phenomena playing an important role in the world that shall be modelled was documented and many documents have been lost or are not available. If they really would only rely on documented stuff than we will have a bad sim.

 

Adrenalin rush is common knowledge and can be observed in many different fields. It is what makes animals run faster when fleeing a predator. It is capable to liberate forces that you did not know that you had. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
Posted (edited)

Fortunately the effects of g-forces are exceptionally well documented in studies by multiple airforces, civil-aviation groups and space programs and much of that data is available publicly. It's one of the best documented of all physical effects on the human body.

A quick google gives me a few papers on the relationship between adrenaline and g tolerance.

 

It would appear that all high g exposure produces an adrenal response, so it will already be accounted for in the data the devs have used.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe

Thanks for that find.

 

I was though more referring to adrenalin rush triggered by fear for one's survival when you are chased by an enemy.I doubt this could be reproduced in flight tests.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
16 minutes ago, sturmkraehe said:

I doubt this could be reproduced in flight tests.

 Through the magic of medicine, any level of adrenaline can produced in test subjects.

I'd bet any money that the military and others have experimented with every drug and hormone that might improve g tolerance, epinephrine/adrenaline included. There will be good data on this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
Posted (edited)

I agree that medics have surely tested a lot. I wonder however, if they really could reproduce the fear-induced adrenalin rush in a dogfight situation. In such a situation your body floods your blood with adrenalin that - as far as I understand - is allowing one's muscle to increase oxygen consumption and thus improce strength output. To achieve this, the pilot would have to have an injection of infusion. I doubt there is an adrenalin pill.

 

I would also say under certain situation your mind can work (slightly) better than under normal conditions. At least this is what I experience when piloting one of my club's Cessnas. I am much more focused and under these conditions some body functions work differently than when I drive a car or sit around. Just talking about personal experience. I think the famous placebo effect is a bit similar and there is much more interaction between mind and body than what we were taught to believe.

Edited by sturmkraehe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
Posted (edited)

 

If adrenaline was effective, it's method would be via constricting blood vessels near the skin and raising blood pressure (which it does), rather that saturating the blood as your blood tends to always be at, or near, maximum O2 saturation unless something is wrong.

g forces cause a lack of blood pressure in the brain, not a lack of oxygen saturation in the blood.

 

As suspected, adrenaline has been tested...

 

Quote

Howard (39) reviewed the effect on G tolerance of pharmacologic agents that theoretically could increase vasomotor tone and/or blood pressure. Generally, their effect is negligible. A list of tested drugs includes: analeptics, adrenaline, adrenaline and ephidrine, atropine, amphetamine sulphate, anti-malarial agents, oestradiol and testosterone, paredrine, and sodium diphenylhydrantonin. Adrenocorticoids and posteriorpituitary extracts also failed to improve G tolerance

Source

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

jollyjack
On 4/10/2021 at 1:18 AM, LukeFF said:

Yes, of course it's a game, but it's based on well-sourced scientific data.

 

 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...