Jump to content

The G fatigue model is incorrect and needs revision.


LColony_Red_Comet
 Share

Recommended Posts

LColony_Red_Comet

IIRC around the release of BOBP the first iteration in the new G system was introduced. This reduced the point at which blackout occurred to about 5.5G which was accurate. Later a revision of the revision was released that added G fatigue to that system. The way fatigue is modeled is not even close to being accurate and causes some extremely detrimental effects to the nature of air combat in il2.

     The way the current system works, effectively instant G-Loc occurs over 5.5 G. Below this, there are time limits. Roughly speaking, without a G suit, you have about 30 seconds available at 5G, 1 minute at 4G, 2 minutes and 30 seconds at 3.5G. These times are far too short, but further complicating the problem is that the G-fatigue is cumulative and going down to a lower G setting that is greater than about 2.8G will result in the pilot continuing to fatigue.

    

The reality is far different:

 

image.png.f08be25f2b8b56686ba746b52c346650.png

 

 

   As can be seen above, between 8 test subjects without a G suit, the times achieved at different levels of G were much longer than what we have in il2. At 3G many subjects went from an hour to 45min. The average at 3.5 G was 34min (rounded down to nearest minute because im lazy). At 4G the average was 12 minutes.

 

Report is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13654211/

 

From https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/AGARD-AG-322/AGARD-AG-322.pdf

 

image.png.a49085aa504f23a07c56d449a21b30b8.png

 

 

 

 

 

The G system should be changed to reflect the above charts. The current system is not realistic and is not a trivial problem. Due to the overly short duration of G that can be sustained, the practicality of high G defensive break turns and downward negative PS high speed turns is reduced to near impracticability. It also exaggerates the advantage of the G suit since it means that without the G suit the entire 4-5G region is basically unusable by the player if they want to have any G tolerance left over after turning at a higher G.

 

Edited by LColony_Red_Comet
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 22
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard

Yes, the tolerance levels and times for a fresh pilot are well done, but the stamina draining happens too quickly and decreases the tolerance way too much, to the point of making a tired pilot being able to lose consciousness after a few seconds at 3G-3.5G which doesn't look like it should be a thing. Looks like being tired should start to be a significant matter above 6G.

Some time ago I asked an F-15E WSO that hangs out in flight sim communities about this topic and this is what he had to say:
 

Quote

SuperEtendard: with just a standard G suit, not the helmet and mask improvement, how much time does it take for the fatigue to affect G tolerance? Say at the start of the fights you can last a couple minutes at 5-6 G (say average pilot tolerance). After a while maneuvering does it get to a point where 3-4G is not sustainable and you start blacking out at that? Or can you still hold higher Gs at all times although with increasing effort each time?

Klarsnow:

3-4 G is never a problem for long
your resting tolerance is 3-4 G on average

IE you will not have any issues with blacking out at 3-4 G

its uncomfortable if sustained, but not gonna wear you out

5-6 is where it starts to get hard if its held, but even with a regular G suit, the length of a dogfight is not a problem

7G plus is still not too much of a problem for the length of a dogfight but you arent stayign there in a strike eagle for very long

blacking out at 5-6 G is pretty uncommon

even if you dont do a good G strain you are not going to have issues blacking out even when tired

7G plus is where if you arent doing things right and you are sustaining for awhile that it becomes an issue

you will be tired if you hold 5-7 G constantly for any sustained period of time afterwards, but its not like oh god I cant do it again, its like finihsing a set of reps in a workout

IE ok, that was one set

now for set two

etc...

after an hour of going back and forth for several minutes of 5-7G's think of it like finishing an hour or two long workout

you are wiped

but at no point in there if you are doing it right were you in any danger of just collapsing


 

1 hour ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

     The way the current system works, effectively instant G-Loc occurs over 5.5 G.


One thing to point out though, there are time limits above 5.5G with the current system, they get smaller as G load progresses until a minimum of roughly 9 seconds of tolerance above 7-8G (for a fresh pilot), this is the oxygen reserve in the brain tissue itself, regardless of blood flow restrictions.
 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Like 1
  • Upvote 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

isn't it dependent on the person? i had thought the IL2 game had tried to get an average of the typical pilot in the time period. I heard some individuals cant withstand 3g. obviously the modern USAF, I imagine at least, would not of had that person go very far in their training program... 

Edited by zan64
cant write coherently... maybe g fatigue :P
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cpt_Siddy

This is where the superior western life standards come in to play. 

American and German pilots can withstand far better G's than poorly fed Soviets. There is also rumor that British pilots had trouble processing their food because of the various stages of the teeth decomposition most of the island found itself with after the German U boat blockage caused shortages of mouth hygiene products. Rumors say that its still an issue to this day... 

Edited by Cpt_Siddy
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9
Just now, Cpt_Siddy said:

This is where the superior western life standards come in to play. 

American and German pilots can withstand far better G's than poorly fed Soviets. There is also rumor that British pilots had trouble processing their food because of the various stages of the teeth decomposition most of the island found itself with after the German U boat blockage caused shortages of mouth hygiene products. Rumors say that its still an issue to this day... 

Funny!

As Zan says i think it is very individual (as is dentistry/orthodontics - Urban versus rural, rich versus poor, fresh versus processed food even in 1940s).  I don't think the charts posted above show cumulative effects which is what needs to be looked at. These look like one off tests at specific G levels - happy to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6FG_Jakl
1 hour ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

IIRC around the release of BOBP the first iteration in the new G system was introduced. This reduced the point at which blackout occurred to about 5.5G which was accurate. Later a revision of the revision was released that added G fatigue to that system. The way fatigue is modeled is not even close to being accurate and causes some extremely detrimental effects to the nature of air combat in il2.

     The way the current system works, effectively instant G-Loc occurs over 5.5 G. Below this, there are time limits. Roughly speaking, without a G suit, you have about 30 seconds available at 5G, 1 minute at 4G, 2 minutes and 30 seconds at 3.5G. These times are far too short, but further complicating the problem is that the G-fatigue is cumulative and going down to a lower G setting that is greater than about 2.8G will result in the pilot continuing to fatigue.

    

The reality is far different:

 

image.png.f08be25f2b8b56686ba746b52c346650.png

 

 

   As can be seen above, between 8 test subjects without a G suit, the times achieved at different levels of G were much longer than what we have in il2. At 3G many subjects went from an hour to 45min. The average at 3.5 G was 34min (rounded down to nearest minute because im lazy). At 4G the average was 12 minutes.

 

Report is https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/13654211/

 

From https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/AGARD/AGARD-AG-322/AGARD-AG-322.pdf

 

image.png.a49085aa504f23a07c56d449a21b30b8.png

 

 

 

 

 

The G system should be changed to reflect the above charts. The current system is not realistic and is not a trivial problem. Due to the overly short duration of G that can be sustained, the practicality of high G defensive break turns and downward negative PS high speed turns is reduced to near impracticability. It also exaggerates the advantage of the G suit since it means that without the G suit the entire 4-5G region is basically unusable by the player if they want to have any G tolerance left over after turning at a higher G.

 

This is very accurate, sometimes you black out even below 3g if you're tired which is plainly unrealistic. Thank you for this accurate post and mentioning the cruicial rework required here. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

These times are far too short, but further complicating the problem is that the G-fatigue is cumulative and going down to a lower G setting that is greater than about 2.8G will result in the pilot continuing to fatigue.

 

2.8G is effectively like multiplying your body weight by 2.8 ...yes?

 

If so, then after seriously hard work lifting far greater loads, you take a break, but it's with the equivalent of 2 average sized people on your shoulders.

 

Do you think it would be reasonable to assume that you would continue to be fatigued or not?

 

=====================

 

This is obviously an unequal analogy for G force as G force excerpts itself on every drop of your blood and all your organs and is not just supported by your body frame like carrying a normal load. Making G force much worse.

 

I may be wrong but I think that 2.8G is not an insignificant force on someone trying to recover from being subjected to a greater force.

 

====================

 

At some point in the simulation there has to be a figure where it goes from continued fatigue accumulation to recovery.

 

Where would you propose that point be made?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragon1-1

Note that weight distribution matters a lot. When you're literally carrying something on your shoulders, the weight is highly concentrated on a small part of your body, and that's tiring. Sitting still while wearing heavy body armor is a better analogy, and it's much less exhausting due to the weight being distributed across your whole body. The situation with pulling Gs is similar, there's no single point on which the load is concentrated. I haven't been exposed to high Gs, but from my experience with being saddled with heavy gear on a hike, is that resting is quite possible without taking it off, as long as the load is properly distributed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FTC_Burdokva

@Pict I think that another good indicator might be F1 drivers. I can't seem to find the average sustained g-load throughout a race but I've read it is well over 2G, and drivers can sustain it for more than an hour. Keeping in mind that although the G load doesn't reach the levels seen in fighter combat, there are frequent G-spikes during accelerations after turns or cornering at high speeds.

 

The general concept of the current model is great, just too restrictive. From a coding POV, would partial recovery be possible in any sustained load below 3G?

Edited by ACG_Burdokva
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I./JG52_Woutwocampe

Lets also not forget how erratically this g system seems to affect the AI. Sometimes you see 109's and Yak's go all in forever while you are close to death yourself.

 

The AI always arrives 100% fresh in fights and often seems to have a much higher fatigue treshhold than a human player.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
8 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

Yes, the tolerance levels and times for a fresh pilot are well done, but the stamina draining happens too quickly and decreases the tolerance way too much, to the point of making a tired pilot being able to lose consciousness after a few seconds at 3G-3.5G which doesn't look like it should be a thing. Looks like being tired should start to be a significant matter above 6G.

Some time ago I asked an F-15E WSO that hangs out in flight sim communities about this topic and this is what he had to say:
 


 


One thing to point out though, there are time limits above 5.5G with the current system, they get smaller as G load progresses until a minimum of roughly 9 seconds of tolerance above 7-8G (for a fresh pilot), this is the oxygen reserve in the brain tissue itself, regardless of blood flow restrictions.
 

I've recently talked to a pilot aged 70+ who is occasionally doing arobatics. He said: 15min in untrained state (after winter pause) is making him tired and is  a bit tough. I didn't ask him about his limits in trained state.

 

we are talking here about young trained pilots having to deliver for a much shorter time.

Edited by sturmkraehe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
5 hours ago, Pict said:

 

2.8G is effectively like multiplying your body weight by 2.8 ...yes?

 

If so, then after seriously hard work lifting far greater loads, you take a break, but it's with the equivalent of 2 average sized people on your shoulders.

 

Do you think it would be reasonable to assume that you would continue to be fatigued or not?

 

=====================

 

This is obviously an unequal analogy for G force as G force excerpts itself on every drop of your blood and all your organs and is not just supported by your body frame like carrying a normal load. Making G force much worse.

 

I may be wrong but I think that 2.8G is not an insignificant force on someone trying to recover from being subjected to a greater force.

 

====================

 

At some point in the simulation there has to be a figure where it goes from continued fatigue accumulation to recovery.

 

Where would you propose that point be made?

Well you could just read the quotes from the eagle pilot...but the obvious thing is that if you can hold 4g for twenty minutes and 3g for 1 hour than holding 4g for 1 min isn't going to cause you to collapse at 2.8g.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

Well you could just read the quotes from the eagle pilot...but the obvious thing is that if you can hold 4g for twenty minutes and 3g for 1 hour than holding 4g for 1 min isn't going to cause you to collapse at 2.8g.

 

None of the above is obvious to me :) 

 

I just wanted to understand what you thought it should be, from your point of view as someone flying combat in IL2BOX and the OP of this thread, not an "eagle pilot", or any other pilot or anyone else for that matter.

 

So what do think it should be? 4G?, 5G?, 3.68G?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
1 minute ago, Pict said:

So what do think it should be? 4G?, 5G?, 3.68G?

The tests literally tell you this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9

I think we may be missing the point here. G Tolerance is hugely individual and trained pilots do not always perform better than untrained pilots (without a G suit) depending on a huge variety of things from whether they have a cold/hangover/dehydrated which can all decrease G Tolerance to very low levels. Even age doesn't necessarily have an impact as long as the cardiovascular system is in good condition. In fact super fit athletes are less G tolerant due to their very slow heart rates.  What is known is that pilots were/are trained to combat the effects of G by clenching muscles and exerting themselves significantly to prevent blood flow to the extremities at the same time as being under significant G loading.

 

So it is less about the G force being applied and more about the cumulative impact of continuously exerting oneself to combat Gs - imagine sitting with intermittently an extra 70-350kgs being loaded in a well distributed way onto your body (depending on Gs you are pulling). I think all of us could probably handle that for a fair amount of time. However then try clenching all of your muscles in your chest and legs every for 15 seconds every 2 minutes for 15 minutes to prevent blood from moving to your extremities at the same time. You will fatigue quickly - I guarantee it - and be less able to tolerate the exertions over a relatively short time.

 

In addition there is the rapid movement from +G to -G that also reduces tolerance due to the heart rate slowing significantly under G- due to high blood pressure and then speeding up rapidly due to low blood pressure under +G. To switch between the two rapidly is debilitating in terms of recovery from exertion and will mean that G tolerance will be further reduced.

 

My guess is that WW2 pilots knew their limits and multiple, sequential and aggressive G heavy manoeuvres were not used in combat unless in emergencies.

 

So back to the question are the thresholds set incorrectly - I would argue that its fantastic something like this is modelled in the game at all and that to average something like this out in a game to apply fairly is very difficult but probably they are a good estimate - as long as the AI is subject to the same.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
13 minutes ago, Peachy9 said:

I think we may be missing the point here. G Tolerance is hugely individual and trained pilots do not always perform better than untrained pilots (without a G suit) depending on a huge variety of things from whether they have a cold/hangover/dehydrated which can all decrease G Tolerance to very low levels. Even age doesn't necessarily have an impact as long as the cardiovascular system is in good condition. In fact super fit athletes are less G tolerant due to their very slow heart rates.  What is known is that pilots were/are trained to combat the effects of G by clenching muscles and exerting themselves significantly to prevent blood flow to the extremities at the same time as being under significant G loading.

Which is why I quoted the average, it still being several orders of magnitude greater than what we have in il2. Il2 isn't even in the right ballpark. Its G fatigue system is, to put it bluntly, absurd.

 

14 minutes ago, Peachy9 said:

So it is less about the G force being applied and more about the cumulative impact of continuously exerting oneself to combat Gs - imagine sitting with intermittently an extra 70-350kgs being loaded in a well distributed way onto your body (depending on Gs you are pulling). I think all of us could probably handle that for a fair amount of time. However then try clenching all of your muscles in your chest and legs every for 15 seconds every 2 minutes for 15 minutes to prevent blood from moving to your extremities at the same time. You will fatigue quickly - I guarantee it - and be less able to tolerate the exertions over a relatively short time.

Again no. Tests show that the typical pilot without a suit can handle 4G for at least 12 times longer than il2 lets us. And that just the average without taking into account that about half the test subjects stopped at 20minutes of 4G acceleration arbitrarily, which makes the average conservative.

 

16 minutes ago, Peachy9 said:

My guess is that WW2 pilots knew their limits and multiple, sequential and aggressive G heavy manoeuvres were not used in combat unless in emergencies.

lol

Also the data makes it abundantly clear why most other sims either do not model G fatigue at all or only model it at very high G loads, like 7 G or so. In Falcon BMS you will fatigue from pulling over 7G for about 2 minutes or something. In DCS you fatigue in about 30-45 seconds over 8G. The old aces high didn't even bother, you blacked out at 6G and generally ww2 planes cant sustain 5G long enough for it to hit the 3-5 minutes it would take to fatigue.

 

Furthermore, Il2s fatigue system is extremely overly aggressive regarding positive G but is for some reason extremely tolerant of negative G despite the fact that it is well known that negative G's are much more difficult to tolerate. If the game models increased fatigue from negative G or negative positive oscillation, its minute because I have never noticed it.

 

So as of the current G model we have pilots who pass out from pulling 3-4G for more than a minute but that can stick stir pulling negative G to their hearts content in order to do some extremely unrealistic guns defense.

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

The tests literally tell you this.

 

Like I said earlier, none of the above is obvious to me, but I would bet that the dev team accessed that data and plenty of other data too while putting the G simulation together. Yet they came up with what we have.

 

The tests offer many solutions due to there being many test subjects. IL2 offers one solution due to the idea of equality for all players. This is why I asked you to pick one solution to better understand your point.

 

Or would you suggest that we have more than one solution and randomly apply that to each aircraft at spawn? I bet that would go down like a lead balloon, but is that what you are suggesting? It's not clear.

 

================

 

So it appears that you don't want to be tied to a number, fair enough.

 

================

 

It also sounds like you don't see the need for the G modelling at all from what you've said about other combat sims take on it. If that's that's case there's an easy solution in the realism settings for those who don't like it...just turn it off ;) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AEthelraedUnraed
7 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

The AI always arrives 100% fresh in fights and often seems to have a much higher fatigue treshhold than a human player.

This is simply not true. The AI has the same G-tolerance as you. If you notice any difference, it's probably due to your own flying.

 

In fact, being someone who's overly scared of GLOCs and loss of energy, I tend to not pull any amount of Gs that lead to even a greyout, instead immediately climbing into a Yo-Yo as soon as my enemy goes into a high-G turn, going into almost a sort of Immelmann if needed to stay on the bandit's tail. As a result, I barely black out, let alone GLOC, instead of in absolute emergencies. Whereas the enemy GLOCs quite often especially after they get fatigued.

 

1 hour ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

The tests literally tell you this.

The one test you cite shows this.

 

However, please read Dev Blog 263. The Devs actually did a fantastically thorough job a while ago, reading through "over three dozen other publications, NASA reports, scientific dissertations, and unique test materials" in order to reach these results. They explicitly acknowledge the existence of data such as what you quoted:

Quote

Unfortunately, some of them are contradictory, and there is no one single model of the “average person” that would reliably describe our “average” endurance. In one source, you can find information that an experienced aerobatic pilot can withstand +2Gs only for 13 minutes, while in another source, you can find a figure that the + 3Gs are quite normally tolerated within an hour.

Given that they compiled these results from >36 scientific sources (including, it seems, the one you quote) whereas you only cite a single source, I'm inclined to believe the Devs. Unless of course you can explain these discrepancies and give a good reason to trust your source above all the others.

 

 

EDIT: please don't see this as an attack on your point of view, or a stubborn defence of the status quo. You come up with some scientific evidence, which is something I can only applaud and is more than can be said of 90% of all those who complain about whatever in the game. However, a single piece of evidence doesn't mean absolute truth yet, and the Devs actually researched this quite well.

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

LColony_Red_Comet
3 minutes ago, Pict said:

Like I said earlier, none of the above is obvious to me, but I would bet that the dev team accessed that data and plenty of other data too while putting the G simulation together. Yet they came up with what we have.

I have no idea how they got to the conclusions they got, because its not supported by the data and none of the other sims in the last 20 years have done it this way.

 

4 minutes ago, Pict said:

The tests offer many solutions due to there being many test subjects.

Clearly the reasonable option would be the average, or even perhaps slightly on the optimistic side. Which according to the data is 12 times the duration we have in Il2 at 4G. In fact it is astronomically longer in real life at all G loads. Except negative G, which il2 for some reason largely ignores.

 

7 minutes ago, Pict said:

So it appears that you don't want to be tied to a number, fair enough.

 

================

 

It also sounds like you don't see the need for the G modelling at all from what you've said about other combat sims take on it. If that's that's case there's an easy solution in the realism settings for those who don't like it...just turn it off ;) 

This is not a solution, because the most aggressive option is always what the servers use. Dont be coy.

 

I dont mind there being fatigue, but the data shows that the time you can sustain a the G loads ww2 airplanes actually have the energy to sustain means that the airplane wont be able to hold the G load you would need to be at long enough for you to actually fatigue. Hence why most other games dont bother. Also its not about not quoting a number, because I never said there should be a point at which you dont fatigue. Your question missed the point because it wouldn't matter practically speaking. If you can pull 4G for 20 min and 3G for 60min, then pulling 4G for 2 minutes and then easing off (or running out of altitude to keep speed high enough) to 2.8G is CLEARLY not going to cause you to pass out since you could have just stayed at 4G for another 18 minutes assuming the plane could actually keep the G up, which in ww2 it cant. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, I./JG52_Woutwocampe said:

[The AI] often seems to have a much higher fatigue treshhold than a human player.

 

Except it doesn't - the AI is subject to the same laws of physics as the player.

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

Peachy9

The chart (3-5) you posted above and the article are very interesting. The test they used up to 5G in this chart was relaxed G Tolerance and was measured using 15 second sessions increasing higher G levels with intervening 30 sec to 1 min rest periods. So an average of 12 minutes at 4G would be roughly 12-15 separate 15 second sessions at 4G with intervening 30-60 second rests at 3G between them (thats what the paper says). Would be good to try this out in the game to see how long the fatigue system takes to kick in. that may be a better test of the game. I am guessing the game may still be overdoing it a little? So maybe increasing that lower G setting below which fatigue doesn't kick in to 3.5G may do the trick?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
16 minutes ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Given that they compiled these results from >36 scientific sources (including, it seems, the one you quote) whereas you only cite a single source, I'm inclined to believe the Devs. Unless of course you can explain these discrepancies and give a good reason to trust your source above all the others.

I read that dev blog when it first came out. The G changes in that change featured many things other than endurance, and so did the research. You are unreasonably lumping everything the looked at as being relevant to the endurance calculation. Furthermore I only linked two sources so far, I have a third. I havent been able to find a single source so far that supports the current model in terms of endurance. I also only see reference to my second document, not the first in the blog.

11 minutes ago, Peachy9 said:

The chart (3-5) you posted above and the article are very interesting. The test they used up to 5G in this chart was relaxed G Tolerance and was measured using 15 second sessions increasing higher G levels with intervening 30 sec to 1 min rest periods. So an average of 12 minutes at 4G would be roughly 12-15 separate 15 second sessions at 4G with intervening 30-60 second rests at 3G between them (thats what the paper says). Would be good to try this out in the game to see how long the fatigue system takes to kick in. that may be a better test of the game. I am guessing the game may still be overdoing it a little? So maybe increasing that lower G setting below which fatigue doesn't kick in to 3.5G may do the trick?

The 12 minute average comes from the first chart, which is from sustained uninterrupted G load until the subject quit or hit the arbitrary time.

 

Figure 3-5 is a different set of data, and nowhere does it say that it is 15 seconds at 4 G and then a rest at 3G. What it does say is that a common test applied to subjects to determine endurance is to oscillate every 15 seconds from 5G to 7G. It also does not say that the chart is based on oscillations, it is simply discussing that this is a typical test done.

 

image.png.6fe68c3b2572e6be4defe5263f7edc31.png

image.png.1b5a3b8aef40d77a0677650396d47fb0.png

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9

Figure 3.5 combines Relaxed G Tolerance and SACM data as per below from the same page referring to 3.5

 

"Of particular interest is the different G duration-level relationship from 3 to 5 G compared with 6 to 9 G—the former representing relaxed G tolerance and the latter, of course, tolerances where the anti-G suit and AGSM must be used. These different slopes indicate that the limiting factors at the lower G level are not limiting at higher G levels."

 

So the graph represents High G (above 5g) data from SACM (Simulated Air Combat Manoeuvre) measured as per your snip above - oscillating the centrifuge every 15 seconds from 5G to 7G and 0-4.5 g using Relaxed G Tolerance (with No Gsuit)  as per Page 17 (I assume) - detailed below

 

- "The classic G-level tolerance is determined on subjects that are "relaxed" and is considered an individual's basic G tolerance. This relaxed tolerance measures the cardio-vascular response to an increased G exposure. Although relatively high relaxed G tolerances are not required to tolerate high levels of G, extremely low relaxed G tolerances arc considered important enough for developing pilot selection standards that excludes pilots with low G tolerances. In determining relaxed G-level tolerances in the laboratory, the relaxed seated subject, not using an inflated anti-G suit, looks straight ahead at a light bar  as 15 sec epochs of increasing higher G levels are provided by the centrifuge at defined (1 to 6 G/sec) onset rates with intervening 30 sec to 1 min rest periods. The initial G-level is usually 3 G with succeeding G-level increases of 0.2 to 0.5 G each. Because the subject is relaxed and the onset of G is rapid at 1 G/sec, this G tolerance is called a relaxed rapid onset rate (ROR) tolerance."

 

Edit -  I now get it that the data you quoted from was from a different chart - my confusion. The data from 3.5 indicates that most subjects tolerated up to 25 minutes at 4g using the Relaxed Tolerance tests - so this equates to probably 7-9 minutes at 4g and the rest at 3g intermittently. Which I agree is significantly more than 1 minute. 

 

Where does the first chart come from - the first link you posted doesn't link to it.

Edited by Peachy9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-=PHX=-SuperEtendard
4 hours ago, Peachy9 said:

Would be good to try this out in the game to see how long the fatigue system takes to kick in.


As soon as you deplete an entire tolerance cycle (pressing into blackout with an eventual G-loc) one or two times, the stamina drains completely and you go into the G-loc at 3G state.  You can't do repetitions to test full tolerance as when the first events happens it results in depletion of the stamina pool.

@AEthelraedUnraed The data used by the devs was used for a fresh pilot tolerance, but not on how fatigue affects tolerance in the longer term (after already experiencing a blackout / G-loc), this is where the model have the issues we talk about.

 

Edited by -=PHX=-SuperEtendard
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6FG_Jakl
9 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:

but not on how fatigue affects tolerance in the longer term (after already experiencing a blackout / G-loc), this is where the model have the issues we talk about.

 

thank you for reminding everyone what the true issue is 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
16 hours ago, -=PHX=-SuperEtendard said:


As soon as you deplete an entire tolerance cycle (pressing into blackout with an eventual G-loc) one or two times, the stamina drains completely and you go into the G-loc at 3G state.  You can't do repetitions to test full tolerance as when the first events happens it results in depletion of the stamina pool.

@AEthelraedUnraed The data used by the devs was used for a fresh pilot tolerance, but not on how fatigue affects tolerance in the longer term (after already experiencing a blackout / G-loc), this is where the model have the issues we talk about.

 

The thing is ingame you go into G-loc or stamina depletion in much less times than indicated by the graphs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9

I don’t think the data in the graphs measures any sort of g tolerance post g-loc as g-loc or fatigue ended the tests. 

so resilience post g-loc is what needs to be measured and do we have any data for that?

what happens if you push 4g then release the turn pre g-loc repeatedly in game? Let’s test that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe
1 hour ago, Peachy9 said:

I don’t think the data in the graphs measures any sort of g tolerance post g-loc as g-loc or fatigue ended the tests. 

so resilience post g-loc is what needs to be measured and do we have any data for that?

what happens if you push 4g then release the turn pre g-loc repeatedly in game? Let’s test that

Maybe read OP's original post again. The issue with the ingame model is that already the initial fatigue drain is not correct according to the graphs put forward. Fatigue point ingame kicks in much earlier than suggested by the graphes. This is to my understanding the message the OP wanted to transport. It is you who brought up the point on post fagigue tolerance.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9

I have read the original post. And what it says is you have 1 minute at 4g until G-Loc (for example). The original post then goes on to talk about fatigue being cumulative but not when fatigue kicks in.

my point is that according to the paper linked above, standard tests at under 5G use these 15 second bursts of 3.5G or 4g or 4.5G interspersed with 3G rest periods resulting in the longer periods of tolerance recorded. It is not as simple as saying the 1 minute at 4g before G loc is too short compared to these tests because they do not push the subjects to g-loc in the tests and they have rest periods after 15 seconds. 
Anyway it’s a discussion and I am kind of half agreeing with the OP in that I think the fatigue model is over egged but possibly this is done to average out the very wide ranges of tolerance.

 

I also agree -G is much more dangerous and in all Sims it is completely under modelled. 

 

Edited by Peachy9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning

Modeling negative g is tough.

Humans can tolerate more negative g than they are usually able to willingly tolerate.

In the sim, we have no realistic way to make negative g as extremely unpleasant as it is in reality.

 

Over all, I think it's clear that the g model we have falls well within the limits of real world, human variation.

To put it another way, it may or may not be the case that the game models the exact average of human ability, but there are certainly many real pilots with better g tolerance than we have in game and there are certainly many real pilots with worse g tolerance than we have in game.

That's more than good enough for me.

 

With fatigue and sudden g onset modeled, I suspect IL2 has the most accurate and in-depth g modeling of any sim.

Edited by [DBS]Browning
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG300_Winterz

To be honest I like the actual model as you have to think more about what you are doing if you dont want to ruin you stamina but it could be better:

 

I would increase stamina a bit and make it so you can pull 3/3.5G forever.

Because Imo the biggest problem is the fact you can pass out at such a low G.

 

That would be perfect.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peachy9
6 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Modeling negative g is tough.

Humans can tolerate more negative g than they are usually able to willingly tolerate.

In the sim, we have no realistic way to make negative g as extremely unpleasant as it is in reality.

 

Over all, I think it's clear that the g model we have falls well within the limits of real world, human variation.

To put it another way, it may or may not be the case that the game models the exact average of human ability, but there are certainly many real pilots with better g tolerance than we have in game and there are certainly many real pilots with worse g tolerance than we have in game.

That's more than good enough for me.

 

With fatigue and sudden g onset modeled, I suspect IL2 has the most accurate and in-depth g modeling of any sim.

I completely agree and assume that many pilots will only have pulled significant G (negative or positive) for sustained periods in absolute emergencies or in fact unintentionally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sturmkraehe

I still think from the sources posted the g tolerance is far too limited. Please read the table in the OP again. It says "minutes". That is 60' is actually 1 hour.

 

WithOUT g-suite the WORST faring individual could sustain about more than one and a half minute of 5g, the average being much higher. Individuals 7 and 8 are so far off they look more like statistical outliers than really representative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
10 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Modeling negative g is tough.

Humans can tolerate more negative g than they are usually able to willingly tolerate.

In the sim, we have no realistic way to make negative g as extremely unpleasant as it is in reality.

There is, previous sims did it. You add a very significant red out effect that rapidly blinds the player if the aggressively pull -G. The effect does not have to be a one to one representation of reality, since it also needs to irritate the player so that they dont pull negative Gs like its nothing. The behavior we have now is ridiculous because it is extremely common to have people doing negative G gun defense etc.

 

10 hours ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Over all, I think it's clear that the g model we have falls well within the limits of real world, human variation.

To put it another way, it may or may not be the case that the game models the exact average of human ability, but there are certainly many real pilots with better g tolerance than we have in game and there are certainly many real pilots with worse g tolerance than we have in game.

That's more than good enough for me.

 

With fatigue and sudden g onset modeled, I suspect IL2 has the most accurate and in-depth g modeling of any sim.

Its something like 12 times under modeled. How is that close, much less the best in any sim? The game should reflect something close to the average, which is what every single sim except il2 has done over the last two decades. The current system is so under modeled that you cannot even fly correct fighter tactics because your pilot does not have the stamina. If you pull a defensive turn, you blow all your stamina. If you get into a downward nose to tail turn fight and you attempt to maintain a nose low negative PS turn in order to keep your rate up, you run out of stamina. The only way to dogfight right now at any speed over 200mph is to yank the throttle to zero and carefully pull no more than 4G as your decelerate as rapidly as possible so that you can get down to a speed where your pilot isnt going to faint. There is now virtually no way to make use of altitude in turn duels because you cannot take advantage of the additional G. And good luck defending more than one bandit. Virtually all dog fighting now is completely silly because even modest maneuvers between 3-4G result in the pilot getting tired.

 

 

 

It is both wildly unrealistic and horrible for game play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning

None of that is true.

 

Here is the base times for g lock that the Devs use for pilots without fatigue, sudden onset or g-suits. I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from. Guesses?

Chart.JPG

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

LColony_Red_Comet
17 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

None of that is true.

Lol. Now we're in gaslight territory

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

I have no idea where you are getting your numbers from. Guesses?

What on earth are you talking about. I linked to two separate sources that show the devs data is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning
On 6/23/2021 at 6:51 AM, LColony_Red_Comet said:

   The way the current system works, effectively instant G-Loc occurs over 5.5 G. Below this, there are time limits. Roughly speaking, without a G suit, you have about 30 seconds available at 5G, 1 minute at 4G, 2 minutes and 30 seconds at 3.5G.

 

These numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LColony_Red_Comet
26 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

These numbers.

Lol. I tested in game and will gladly post the tracks when I'm a able. You will notice I said "about" 1 min at 4G and 2min 30 seconds at 3.5g. So I was a little off. Given that it's pretty hard to hold exactly 4g since it requires getting e management exactly right going down hill, I think it reflects the practical reality fairly well. And it either case your nit picking. 

 

So I'll rephrase since your being arbitrarily pedantic: the games blackout times are off by a factor of 6.85 at 4g, Rounding the times in the test documents down and ignoring that 3 of the test subjects quit arbitrarily at 20min.

  • Upvote 2
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...