The G fatigue model is incorrect and needs revision.

[sturmkraehe]

1 hour ago, [DBS]Browning said:

 

These numbers.

I think this thread is not about some player's numbers being right or wrong but about the in game modelling being right or wrong. Your curves in the previous post are to my understanding those used in the sim. When I compare these with the table in the OP, one has to realize that they are not congruent.

[Peachy9]

11 hours ago, LColony_Red_Comet said:

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.

thanks for testing, will have a go today too. I have found the paper from which you original post  table comes. So I stand corrected as to the methods used. It was a continuous tolerance experiment and not a simulated air combat experiment.

 

https://spacemedicineassociation.org/download/history/history_files_1959/30002.pdf

 

Just to be clear the tests were conducted as follows:

 

“ The rate of onset of acceleration was 0.07 g per second, a slow rate chosen to allow time for the compensatory cardio- vascular reflexes to be fully activated” So that’s a full 4 minutes to accelerate to 3G.

The paper also goes on to say that simulated air combat experiments with short bursts of high G show much shorter periods of tolerance.

 

I think we are all kind of on the same page, fatigue below 4g is probably over modelled but I would not agree by 12x based on the data in OP table being based on slow onset G

 

LColony thanks for posting the papers, definitely learnt something about G forces.

 

Edited June 26, 2021 by Peachy9

[I./JG52_Woutwocampe]

On 6/23/2021 at 3:27 PM, LukeFF said:

 

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

 

The AI might be subject to the same laws of physics than the player but it remains an AI that is not hindered by some constraints like the player is. For instance, ever noticed how perfectly the AI see through a completely oil stained windshield? It remains in the fight, it keeps its firing accuracy and executes perfect landings while the player would be practically blind without the canopy open? So its view wont darken when fatigued maybe? It looks to me that the AI isnt affected at all by fatigue unless it passes out entirely, which I've seen, oddly enough most of the time when the AI is flying a 109. 

[sturmkraehe]

On 6/26/2021 at 9:50 AM, Peachy9 said:

thanks for testing, will have a go today too. I have found the paper from which you original post  table comes. So I stand corrected as to the methods used. It was a continuous tolerance experiment and not a simulated air combat experiment.

 

https://spacemedicineassociation.org/download/history/history_files_1959/30002.pdf

 

Just to be clear the tests were conducted as follows:

 

“ The rate of onset of acceleration was 0.07 g per second, a slow rate chosen to allow time for the compensatory cardio- vascular reflexes to be fully activated” So that’s a full 4 minutes to accelerate to 3G.

The paper also goes on to say that simulated air combat experiments with short bursts of high G show much shorter periods of tolerance.

 

I think we are all kind of on the same page, fatigue below 4g is probably over modelled but I would not agree by 12x based on the data in OP table being based on slow onset G

 

LColony thanks for posting the papers, definitely learnt something about G forces.

 

One should add that in the paper "fatigue and blackout" is defined as "loss of peripheral and central vision" and NOT loss of consciousness.

 

Loss of peripheral and central vision was measured by using appropriately placed lights inside a capsule in which the test persons were sitting in darkness (with exception of the lights). It is not clear what color the lights had. It can be with sound confidence assumed from this test setup that fatigue and blackout limit was determined when the test persons indicated that they no longer could see this and that light. This means the test persons have been well conscious. On a side note: It is as well possible that with this limit a strong greyout level was actually measured rather than a full blown vision loss.

Edited June 27, 2021 by sturmkraehe

[QB.Beno]

I read the first 20-30 posts of people speculating, yet no one has mentioned having real life experience. No mater how much research you do, I can guarantee the development team did 20x more than you have. Why can't people just be happy? For the record I have seen posts by a guy on here who has actually flown aerobatics and he is very satisfied with the g-system. 

[SCG_motoadve]

39 minutes ago, QB.Beno said:

I read the first 20-30 posts of people speculating, yet no one has mentioned having real life experience. No mater how much research you do, I can guarantee the development team did 20x more than you have. Why can't people just be happy? For the record I have seen posts by a guy on here who has actually flown aerobatics and he is very satisfied with the g-system. 

Because a lot of flight sim pilots think they know more than real pilots, fortunately IL2 is not as bad as in FS2020.

I am quite happy with the G fatigue by the way.

[HR_Zunzun]

On 7/11/2021 at 2:37 PM, QB.Beno said:

I read the first 20-30 posts of people speculating, yet no one has mentioned having real life experience. No mater how much research you do, I can guarantee the development team did 20x more than you have. Why can't people just be happy? For the record I have seen posts by a guy on here who has actually flown aerobatics and he is very satisfied with the g-system. 

 

You would be surprised to find out that the second iteration of the G-system was made after research papers that an user (that as far as I remember didn´t have any real pilot experience) found and presented to the developers.

So, as you can see, the developers can be falible too. If someone finds new research that thinks could be relevant to the system then the logic think to do is present it to the devs. Despite what some users (like you) think about it.

[Floppy_Sock]

1 hour ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

You would be surprised to find out that the second iteration of the G-system was made after research papers that an user (that as far as I remember didn´t have any real pilot experience) found and presented to the developers.

So, as you can see, the developers can be falible too. If someone finds new research that thinks could be relevant to the system then the logic think to do is present it to the devs. Despite what some users (like you) think about it.

Yes - I included the papers which were posted by OP and others which agree with the endurance in the figures that were posted. Why the current model does not agree is up for speculation. The data was there.