The G-Load system needs an overhaul.

[Flight_Dojo]

As someone who is not a professional fighter pilot, I've recently conducted a real-life test about what your average, relatively athletic (as we can assume WWII aviators were) person might expect upon having to endure tremendous g-forces. After my testing, I believe the model in this game is extraordinarily conservative. Please see my video below, I've linked it when the G-test takes place.
 

 

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Nice video, for its entertainment value.

But with all due respect, there's multiple things wrong with this test that make it unsuitable to scientifically prove anything. Roughly, these can be divided into two categories; one that shows what's wrong with the testing process itself, and the other one why any conclusions from this particular test don't necessarily relate to a real-life WW2 fighter pilot.

 

General scientific experiments:

- You are a single test subject on a single day, which makes it anecdotal evidence.

- The G load isn't shown anywhere (beyond the pilot shouting out "now we're at 8"); we don't know anything about the measurement's accuracy and only know the G-forces' progression very roughly.

- Too many included variables (e.g. see some of the "conditions" below).

- Too little information given about all other environmental factors that make it impossible to draw any firm conclusions.

- "Average, relatively athletic" is a very subjective phrasing and doesn't give any hard details.

 

Conditions:

- Different aircraft, meaning different body position (e.g. seat incline and stick position).

- Relatively stress-free environment compared to having people shoot at you.

- Relatively little prior fatigue compared to a combat pilot who's flown long and tiresome flights for weeks on end.

- In-flight conditions are likely different too (anything from natural factors like temperature and humidity to bodily factors like hydration.

- You were not at the stick at the time so less mental capacity needed to follow a bandit.

 

In short, this video is anecdotal evidence that doesn't necessarily apply to the case you're trying to prove. I don't doubt you were able to handle a huge G load, but it doesn't show much about whether the average WW2 fighter pilot could do so as well.

 

I don't know if you've read any of the prior discussions on IL2's physiological model. The Devs created their model according to scientific experiments that did adhere to proper testing standards and of which at least a couple were published in peer-reviewed (medical) journals. When someone showed (rightfully) that there was a mistake in the implementation and came up with some additional scientific evidence, the Devs did fix this in a subsequent update (I believe it was about the onset time of a greyout, which was much shorter than it should be). I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but right now we've got on one hand a model that performs according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific tests by various experts in this field and on multiple test subjects, and on the other hand one single guy in a plane who says he can take 8Gs and that therefore the average WW2 fighter pilot could to. Given this choice, I know which of the two I find more trustworthy.

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

I don't know, most flight sim experts spend more time in a chair behind a computer then at the gym ? So, the sim may be spot on!

That being said the expression "Don't believe your lying eyes" comes to mind ? Thank you for your time and effort to create a discussion regarding G force loading in the sim!

I have no clue if it is accurate or not but after 23 years of flight siming I take flight models as they are and adapt, it is what it is they say. I focus more on if I am enjoying myself and having fun.

One last thing,

Your grandfather's MS FF joystick is awesome! What a great family heirloom for you to have!

[R33GZ]

6 hours ago, Flight_Dojo said:

As someone who is not a professional fighter pilot, I've recently conducted a real-life test about what your average, relatively athletic (as we can assume WWII aviators were) person might expect upon having to endure tremendous g-forces. After my testing, I believe the model in this game is extraordinarily conservative. Please see my video below, I've linked it when the G-test takes place.
 

 

Cool video man, SO jealous! I reckon a sustaimed 4-5g would be enough to make me go nighty night lol

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

 

Conditions:

 Different aircraft, meaning different body position (e.g. seat incline and stick position).

  1 - Relatively stress-free environment compared to having people shoot at you.

  2 - Relatively little prior fatigue compared to a combat pilot who's flown long and tiresome flights for weeks on end.

  3 - In-flight conditions are likely different too (anything from natural factors like temperature and humidity to bodily factors like hydration.

  You were not at the stick at the time so less mental capacity needed to follow a bandit.

 

 

 

Just a quick thought so, I haven't gone full point-for-point on the entire post but here are 3 that are apparent to me:

 

1 - Incalculable - people react differently to life-or-death stress.  Some fold easily. Some barely even think about it. There is no way to simulate whether the virtual pilot in the virtual plane is a coward, average (scared but, steady), or has nerves of steel. 

2 - Perhaps if there was a "personal health management" component to career mode with a "random roll" applied to every created pilot, this would be valid.

3 - Perhaps a clear day might be varied in different geographical locations but, considering the locations that WW2 took place in, the variation wouldn't be that vast compared to the location of the video.  Also, "bodily factors like hydration" is not calculable.  The plane loadout selection screen for each plane does not offer choices for what the pilot had for breakfast.

Edited August 10, 2023 by Mobile_BBQ

[AndyJWest]

Given the amount of discussion there already has been over this issue, the amount of evidence submitted, and the efforts put in by the developers to model G effects as best as they can with the data available, I'd have to suggest that the chances of this video resulting in any changes are precisely zero.

[BlitzPig_EL]

No offence meant to anyone, but this is typical simmers protecting their turf stuff.  "Real pilots and pilot accounts are never to be trusted, because I have thousands of hours of chair time, and I've read every book of stats and counted every freaking rivet".   Ever seen some real sim grognards at an airshow talking to the people that fly the real thing?  It's pretty often very embarrassing. 

 

Just more of the "harder is more real mantra that has given us overly twitchy ground handling, slip on a banana peel stall departures, overly sensitive G load effects, the accusations of "flying on rails" FMs, etc...

 

Quite a few simmers have been at this so long that each new iteration has to be harder than the real thing just to give them a challenge.

[Avimimus]

2 hours ago, BlitzPig_EL said:

Quite a few simmers have been at this so long that each new iteration has to be harder than the real thing just to give them a challenge.

 

I wasn't following your arguments up to this point. But this last line hit differently, feels a bit too plausible (thinking of myself).

 

Btw. How hard do you think it will be to shoot down an Me-262 while in the Li-2?

[357th_KW]

7 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

I don't know if you've read any of the prior discussions on IL2's physiological model. The Devs created their model according to scientific experiments that did adhere to proper testing standards and of which at least a couple were published in peer-reviewed (medical) journals. When someone showed (rightfully) that there was a mistake in the implementation and came up with some additional scientific evidence, the Devs did fix this in a subsequent update (I believe it was about the onset time of a greyout, which was much shorter than it should be). I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but right now we've got on one hand a model that performs according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific tests by various experts in this field and on multiple test subjects, and on the other hand one single guy in a plane who says he can take 8Gs and that therefore the average WW2 fighter pilot could to. Given this choice, I know which of the two I find more trustworthy.

 

To be fair, the scientific data presented in those threads indicated that test subjects could withstand 5 G's basically indefinitely (20-30 minutes at which point they stopped testing), where in game our pilots can typically handle that for about 45-60 seconds.  Under the current system, the pilot's tolerance gradually degrades for that first 45 seconds and then falls off a cliff and never fully recovers.  Indefinite G tolerance is only about 3 G - which is better then the 2.5 G we started with when the new model was rolled out, but still a far cry from 5. 

 

And it's telling that fundamental historical tactics often fail because of this - typical advice to pilots was to break into an enemy attack, and keep turning - don't reverse the turn as it presents the enemy with an opportunity to fire at you.  In game this just doesn't work - within a minute your pilot is exhausted and unable to even come close to the sustained turn performance of most aircraft.  This is a big part of why you see so many one circle fights and rolling scissors - rate fighting just doesn't work when your pilot can hardly get through a full circle at corner airspeed.

 

If you reach that point and are able to break away, your pilot recovers a slight amount of G tolerance, but this vanishes almost instantly if you start pulling G's again.  Which again, seems at odds with real life, where pilots are able to endure repeated high G exposures with short breaks like in the OPs video, and in fact it's common for fighter pilots or aerobatic pilots to do a "warm-up" routine, where pulling G's and taking short breaks actually increases their tolerance.

 

None of this criticism is meant to belittle the work that went into the current G model.  I think a lot of time and thought and effort went into it, and most aspects of it are good.  Unfortunately it's hamstrung by the low indefinite limits and "fatigue" effect.  The good news is, you can just use the simplified physiology model (selected through the difficulty settings) and at least get a 5 G indefinite limit without the rapid onset fatigue.

Edited August 10, 2023 by 357th_KW

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

And it's telling that fundamental historical tactics often fail because of this - typical advice to pilots was to break into an enemy attack, and keep turning - don't reverse the turn as it presents the enemy with an opportunity to fire at you.

 

This is only true of some airforces and periods!

 

For instance, Fw-190 crews developed tactics like repeatedly reversing the turn - not to slow down as in a typical scissors manoeuvre - but to exploit the high roll rate of the Fw-190 as a means of compensating for a poorer sustained turn rate (i.e. an enemy fighter could out-turn the Fw-190, but it couldn't out-roll and out-turn the Fw-190...), they also often emphasized smooth low-gee turns in order to retain energy and facilitate escape...

[senseispcc]

This is a game ! 

Lucky us it is not a real war or I should be dead thousand of times.

And worse have killed many pilots and others how are in real life people also.

But this is a game on a PC and shall never be reality.

I never can thank enough the team for trying the impossible task to make it so realistic even if not perfect, thanks. 

[Avimimus]

By the way, one thing which was raised the last time this topic came up is that there is a difference between withstanding gee forces and withstanding the transition to/from them (i.e. the entry and exit from a turn).

 

With our joysticks we can pull back hard on the stick with every manoeuvre... even with force feedback the control forces are tiny compared to a real WWII fighter. This was raised as a difference between how real pilots fly and experience gee forces compared to how we often 'fly' in sims, with a gentle pull into a turn being said to give the body more of a chance to adapt/respond to the increased gee forces (whereas a suddenly experience gee force would be likely to lead to a loss of consciousness and/or more fatigue). 

[Flight_Dojo]

20 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Nice video, for its entertainment value.

But with all due respect, there's multiple things wrong with this test that make it unsuitable to scientifically prove anything. Roughly, these can be divided into two categories; one that shows what's wrong with the testing process itself, and the other one why any conclusions from this particular test don't necessarily relate to a real-life WW2 fighter pilot.

 

General scientific experiments:

- You are a single test subject on a single day, which makes it anecdotal evidence.

- The G load isn't shown anywhere (beyond the pilot shouting out "now we're at 8"); we don't know anything about the measurement's accuracy and only know the G-forces' progression very roughly.

- Too many included variables (e.g. see some of the "conditions" below).

- Too little information given about all other environmental factors that make it impossible to draw any firm conclusions.

- "Average, relatively athletic" is a very subjective phrasing and doesn't give any hard details.

 

Conditions:

- Different aircraft, meaning different body position (e.g. seat incline and stick position).

- Relatively stress-free environment compared to having people shoot at you.

- Relatively little prior fatigue compared to a combat pilot who's flown long and tiresome flights for weeks on end.

- In-flight conditions are likely different too (anything from natural factors like temperature and humidity to bodily factors like hydration.

- You were not at the stick at the time so less mental capacity needed to follow a bandit.

 

In short, this video is anecdotal evidence that doesn't necessarily apply to the case you're trying to prove. I don't doubt you were able to handle a huge G load, but it doesn't show much about whether the average WW2 fighter pilot could do so as well.

 

I don't know if you've read any of the prior discussions on IL2's physiological model. The Devs created their model according to scientific experiments that did adhere to proper testing standards and of which at least a couple were published in peer-reviewed (medical) journals. When someone showed (rightfully) that there was a mistake in the implementation and came up with some additional scientific evidence, the Devs did fix this in a subsequent update (I believe it was about the onset time of a greyout, which was much shorter than it should be). I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but right now we've got on one hand a model that performs according to multiple peer-reviewed scientific tests by various experts in this field and on multiple test subjects, and on the other hand one single guy in a plane who says he can take 8Gs and that therefore the average WW2 fighter pilot could to. Given this choice, I know which of the two I find more trustworthy.

I want to argue your points, but you're correct. This was an N=1 study without a lot of controls to ascertain what the average would be reliably.

I think if there's anything to be gleaned from my footage, it's that the average sustained G force fatigue portion of the model might need a second look. 357th brings up a great point: the rate-fighting in my footage would probably not be possible with the current system. This issue, in my superficial opinion, impacts the turn fighters in the sim substantially as it requires them to perform unnecessary reversals that give energy fighters more potential gun solutions.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

19 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

Just a quick thought so, I haven't gone full point-for-point on the entire post but here are 3 that are apparent to me:

 

1 - Incalculable - people react differently to life-or-death stress.  Some fold easily. Some barely even think about it. There is no way to simulate whether the virtual pilot in the virtual plane is a coward, average (scared but, steady), or has nerves of steel. 

2 - Perhaps if there was a "personal health management" component to career mode with a "random roll" applied to every created pilot, this would be valid.

3 - Perhaps a clear day might be varied in different geographical locations but, considering the locations that WW2 took place in, the variation wouldn't be that vast compared to the location of the video.  Also, "bodily factors like hydration" is not calculable.  The plane loadout selection screen for each plane does not offer choices for what the pilot had for breakfast.

[Reacting mainly to the "incalculable" remark]

Well, that's precisely one of my points. There are many big unknowns; too big to really say anything about it and how it would affect a real-life pilot. So one shouldn't.

 

19 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

3 - Perhaps a clear day might be varied in different geographical locations but, considering the locations that WW2 took place in, the variation wouldn't be that vast compared to the location of the video.

Very unsure as to how you came to this conclusion. I looked up the climate details for Las Vegas (where this video was recorded) as well as Eindhoven (a town in the center of the Rheinland map, where I happen to live) for the month of August (because it happens to be so) (source: weather-and-climate.com). Las Vegas has an average of ~21 to 38 degrees C with ~24% humidity and ~89% sunshine. Eindhoven has an average of ~13 to 24 degrees C with ~76% humidity and ~39% sunshine. I would say that by all accounts, the variation is huge.

 

14 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

To be fair, the scientific data presented in those threads indicated that test subjects could withstand 5 G's basically indefinitely (20-30 minutes at which point they stopped testing), where in game our pilots can typically handle that for about 45-60 seconds.  Under the current system, the pilot's tolerance gradually degrades for that first 45 seconds and then falls off a cliff and never fully recovers.  Indefinite G tolerance is only about 3 G - which is better then the 2.5 G we started with when the new model was rolled out, but still a far cry from 5. 

 

And it's telling that fundamental historical tactics often fail because of this - typical advice to pilots was to break into an enemy attack, and keep turning - don't reverse the turn as it presents the enemy with an opportunity to fire at you.  In game this just doesn't work - within a minute your pilot is exhausted and unable to even come close to the sustained turn performance of most aircraft.  This is a big part of why you see so many one circle fights and rolling scissors - rate fighting just doesn't work when your pilot can hardly get through a full circle at corner airspeed.

 

If you reach that point and are able to break away, your pilot recovers a slight amount of G tolerance, but this vanishes almost instantly if you start pulling G's again.  Which again, seems at odds with real life, where pilots are able to endure repeated high G exposures with short breaks like in the OPs video, and in fact it's common for fighter pilots or aerobatic pilots to do a "warm-up" routine, where pulling G's and taking short breaks actually increases their tolerance.

 

None of this criticism is meant to belittle the work that went into the current G model.  I think a lot of time and thought and effort went into it, and most aspects of it are good.  Unfortunately it's hamstrung by the low indefinite limits and "fatigue" effect.  The good news is, you can just use the simplified physiology model (selected through the difficulty settings) and at least get a 5 G indefinite limit without the rapid onset fatigue.

You may be correct; I didn't participate very much in that discussion as the effect of G-forces on the human body isn't really one of my knowledgeable areas. Now you mention it, I can somewhat remember some discussion about the "indefinite G limit" but I cannot remember if any definite conclusion was ever formulated.

 

Anyhow, if there are indeed scientific papers that show a discrepancy with the current system, and no other scientific papers that show otherwise, then I fullheartedly join any request to adjust the physiological model to better match the available scientific data.

 

14 hours ago, 357th_KW said:

Which again, seems at odds with real life, where pilots are able to endure repeated high G exposures with short breaks like in the OPs video, and in fact it's common for fighter pilots or aerobatic pilots to do a "warm-up" routine, where pulling G's and taking short breaks actually increases their tolerance.

I may be a layman considering the effects of G forces on the human body, but I do have a little bit of experience working with medical data/measurements There are several things that could cause a warm-up routine to work, beside it actually working. Most obviously, the well-documented placebo effect. I can also imagine slowly getting used to G exposures prepares your mind for the necessary actions needed to get through that, so that you can take the proper actions more efficiently, whether consciously or not. All in all, medical data is very hard to interpret correctly as you've basically got a huge clusterf--- of lots of biological functions, including our minds. If you don't at least take this statistical variation into account, it invalidates all your data.

 

And that brings me back to one of the issues with this video. Basically, one should never trust any single measurement, because the human body simply has too much variation; both between separate persons and between several tests on a single subject. In this video however, we've got one single measurement of the test subject at one single time (well, technically two but they're *very* close together). There is just no way to trust anecdotal data like that. I've had a grayout when I'd been idly sitting for too long and then suddenly got up too fast. That's what, 1.1Gs or something? Yet it cannot be seen as any indication that the current pilot physiology system is too easy since I'm just a single person and it's just a single incident. The fact that person 1 on day A at location X can withstand 8Gs says nothing about whether person 2 on day B at location Y can do the same.

 

I'm sorry if I sound a bit preachy/combative, but I feel very passionate about countering pseudo-science. Without adhering to any proper scientific methods - as this video has failed to do - one could prove anything. People have used similar methods to prove that the Earth is flat, that the moon landings never took place or that contrails are caused by mind-altering chemicals. We should never blindly believe anything if hasn't been tested according to agreed-upon scientific methods.

 

By now, it may appear like I'm against altering the G system, but I'm not. I'm just advocating against using anecdotal evidence when asking the Devs to make alterations to the way the game works. The Developers are creating a simulator here. They need factual and quantifyable data for that. Someone saying "it's too hard/easy" isn't either of them. If we'd go by opinions, the game would be nowhere. Just look at how often both the axis and allied camps have accused the Devs of favouring the other party, for example. They can't be both right, obviously, so let's not go there. Let's *please* stick to scientific arguments.

  

42 minutes ago, Flight_Dojo said:

I want to argue your points, but you're correct. This was an N=1 study without a lot of controls to ascertain what the average would be reliably.

I think if there's anything to be gleaned from my footage, it's that the average sustained G force fatigue portion of the model might need a second look. 357th brings up a great point: the rate-fighting in my footage would probably not be possible with the current system. This issue, in my superficial opinion, impacts the turn fighters in the sim substantially as it requires them to perform unnecessary reversals that give energy fighters more potential gun solutions.

I only saw your post after posting my reply. I guess this is a more nuanced outlook that I can agree with

 

Indeed, @357th_KW brings up a couple of good points, and it after all may be worth it to have a second look (although I doubt this will happen, with the Devs working on the "next project" and such). Anecdotal data cannot ever be a way to prove something, but it *can* sometimes be a way to disprove something and in that way invalidate a currently existing model/theory.

 

And by the way, I did enjoy watching your video, so don't feel too bad about what may sound like some harsh criticisms of mine

Edited August 10, 2023 by AEthelraedUnraed

[spreckair]

Now that we have fairly decent VR, it is too bad that we cannot get a real WWII veteran fighter pilot to try it out and comment, right?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

2 hours ago, AEthelraedUnraed said:

 

 

Very unsure as to how you came to this conclusion. I looked up the climate details for Las Vegas (where this video was recorded) as well as Eindhoven (a town in the center of the Rheinland map, where I happen to live) for the month of August (because it happens to be so) (source: weather-and-climate.com). Las Vegas has an average of ~21 to 38 degrees C with ~24% humidity and ~89% sunshine. Eindhoven has an average of ~13 to 24 degrees C with ~76% humidity and ~39% sunshine. I would say that by all accounts, the variation is huge.

 

 

 

Considering the Mediterranean, North Africa, the Pacific theatre (including the affected Asian mainland), and west Russia, the bulk of the air war actually didn't happen in or around Belgium or Germany. Granted, some of the most crucial events of the air war did though.  

Regardless, unless the turbulence is bad enough to knock the pilot around like a toddler vs. Floyd Mayweather, I don't see how the weather affects G-forces on a pilot.

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

4 hours ago, Mobile_BBQ said:

 

Regardless, unless the turbulence is bad enough to knock the pilot around like a toddler vs. Floyd Mayweather, I don't see how the weather affects G-forces on a pilot.

In the first flight I can remember back in toddlerhood, a 727, there were people using the barf bags.  And I was like weeeee!

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

 

19 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

In the first flight I can remember back in toddlerhood, a 727, there were people using the barf bags.  And I was like weeeee!

 

Mr. Mayweather sends his regards! 

(Well, he would if I knew him. I'm sure of it!)

[Dragon1-1]

On 8/10/2023 at 9:50 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Basically, one should never trust any single measurement, because the human body simply has too much variation; both between separate persons and between several tests on a single subject.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem with simulating G forces in the sim. Note that we are not trying to write a scientific paper. Right now, the approach is to get some sort of statistically averaged G tolerance, but I'm not convinced this is the right one. In WWII, you had a lot of different people end up flying planes, but ones who stayed in the fight were, presumably, ones with better G tolerance. Maybe we should instead work off people who survived air combat during the era, as opposed to the general population? 

 

A single datum, as shown here, is not an example, but it is a good counterexample. It's an experimental result that runs counter to the current model. Yes, it might include placebo effect, but this only means it needs to be included as a factor in the sim. We are aiming to recreate what a WWII pilot would see and feel when engaged in combat. The matter of variation is quite significant, as well, since this means we could, in theory, pick any point on the spectrum and call it realistic. IMO, this should be further towards higher tolerance. People who can't take Gs wash out of high G training these days, and in WWII, they got shot down.

[Avimimus]

A lot of air combat involves attacking enemies which aren't aware you are there... not everything is a turn fight (of course, this observation now opens up potentially issues with AI being too observant).

 

It'd be a bit interesting to have a 'pre-flight fatigue' slider/value in the sim... in some theatres people flew multiple sorties per day, at other times and places flights were relatively less frequent, and crews were better rested (or healthier overall). It'd be interesting in the campaign mode if your first mission had a higher gee tolerance, but your second mission during the same day had a noticeably lower gee tolerance. That'd be pretty cool.

[BlitzPig_EL]

But would it be accurate?

[Aurora_Stealth]

On 8/9/2023 at 11:29 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

General scientific experiments:

- You are a single test subject on a single day, which makes it anecdotal evidence.

- The G load isn't shown anywhere (beyond the pilot shouting out "now we're at 8"); we don't know anything about the measurement's accuracy and only know the G-forces' progression very roughly.

- Too many included variables (e.g. see some of the "conditions" below).

- Too little information given about all other environmental factors that make it impossible to draw any firm conclusions.

- "Average, relatively athletic" is a very subjective phrasing and doesn't give any hard details.

 

Conditions:

- Different aircraft, meaning different body position (e.g. seat incline and stick position).

- Relatively stress-free environment compared to having people shoot at you.

- Relatively little prior fatigue compared to a combat pilot who's flown long and tiresome flights for weeks on end.

- In-flight conditions are likely different too (anything from natural factors like temperature and humidity to bodily factors like hydration.

- You were not at the stick at the time so less mental capacity needed to follow a bandit.

 

A lot of excellent points made here, I still appreciate Flight Dojo's content none the less.

 

One point I'd like to add... which is very easy to overlook, is people (and therefore pilots) back in the 40's were not of the same stature and did not have the same nutrition back then. People were on average a little shorter back then, and nutrition was not the same as it is today; especially if you were operating near the front and on limited rations. It is difficult to quantify all of this reliably.

 

The above also affects how you view cockpit ergonomics back then, as there was no clear definition of 'acceptable' ergonomics and the interpretation of this could be quite different depending on the manufacturer. Design decisions were and to some extent remain affected by the demographics of who is designing. Another example, is it reasonable to expect a pilot to pull 40+ lbs stick force in a manoeuvre if the average mechanical equipment was heavier back then than it was today? mechanically or electrically assisted control systems were not common like they are today and that affects our perception and expectations of these aircraft.

 

Even the idea of a 95th, 5th percentile size person as broadly defined in the aero industry today, in practice still varies depending on geographic region.

 

So this plays into how our expectations don't always fit in with the reality back then.

 

I definitely agree there is a greater context at play.

[Trooper117]

Years ago I read that the RAF findings on this was that shorter stockier pilots coped with G-load better than taller skinnier pilots on the whole...

[Aurora_Stealth]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

Years ago I read that the RAF findings on this was that shorter stockier pilots coped with G-load better than taller skinnier pilots on the whole...

 

Can't say I've read that report but the logic does generally make sense, same as with Formula 1 drivers for example.

 

Being shorter implies the distance between the heart and brain is also shorter (as well as movement/pumping of blood around the rest of body having to travel less) - this would probably reduce the effect on blood pressure when the pilot is straining under G.

 

Being physically fit definitely helps, which the word 'stockier' implies; however you could still be fairly slim but have decent core and muscle strength to resist G I'd think.

[[CPT]Crunch]

There's an experience factor also, guy with a lot of time on several types with lots of exposure is going to know his own physical limits and abilities, thus manage this aspect of flight more efficiently.  Sort of like an experienced drinker of adult beverages, they know when to quit, where their own limit of stupid is well beyond the average teetotaler. 

[Gort]

On 8/9/2023 at 8:30 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

No offence meant to anyone, but this is typical simmers protecting their turf stuff.  "Real pilots and pilot accounts are never to be trusted, because I have thousands of hours of chair time, and I've read every book of stats and counted every freaking rivet".   Ever seen some real sim grognards at an airshow talking to the people that fly the real thing?  It's pretty often very embarrassing. 

 

Just more of the "harder is more real mantra that has given us overly twitchy ground handling, slip on a banana peel stall departures, overly sensitive G load effects, the accusations of "flying on rails" FMs, etc...

 

Quite a few simmers have been at this so long that each new iteration has to be harder than the real thing just to give them a challenge.

Not sure if the OP is claiming that he pulled 8 G's for more than a few seconds in the extra, but the difference is that it would have been very momentary, not anything close to "sustained" where the physiology comes into play. The video doesn't show a very high G load based on the visible turn rate, nor is the extreme nose down attitude that an underpowered Extra would require to sustain more than 5-6 G's for any length of time present. The wide angle lens may obfuscate that a little, but I'm looking at what appears to be more like 4 G's during much of the flight, and that's before the onset of buffet and attitude reveals a low energy state.

Real fighter pilot here by the way, and we did spend significant effort in lower body and core resistance training in order to maintain strength to make anti-G tolerance maneuvers effective, and also constantly ensured that G-suits were fitted properly. Without all of the above, you're looking at a diminishment of vision above 5 G's or so sustained with out the aid of a G suit. The jets obviously differed by their ability to sustain high G compared to piston aircraft. 

[Yogiflight]

6 hours ago, Aurora_Stealth said:

same as with Formula 1 drivers for example.

Nope, Formula 1 drivers don't experience vertical G-loads, just horizontal ones, so it doesn't matter how tall they are for that reason. They are as small as they are, because larger drivers need larger cockpits, which would make the car aerodynamically less efficient, and heavier (the car and the driver).

[MiGCap]

Personal experience from flying backseat in military jet fighters for 39 years now (from Alpha Jets to Eurofighter Typhoons) and frequent centrifuge runs:

 

- Back in the A-Jet times in the Luftwaffe nobody flew this aircraft with anti-G-suits, even it was capable to reach 6.5 Gz with tanks attached (7.33 Gz clean). Usually we worked around 5 to 6 Gz in mock dogfights and it doesn't bothered us, even in sustained turns. So that is perhaps the best comparison to WW2 fighters.

 

- For Eurofighter personnel, the Luftwaffe asks for passing 9 Gz/15 sec in the centrifuge. Our new centrifuge allows an acceleration onset of 10 Gz/sec, but in reality it is driven a little bit slower on the onset. From my point of view, it is easier to sustain this test with our Eurofighter equipment consisting of an inflatable vest (which gives You an artificial breathing under high G-load) plus anti-G-suit in comparison to the 7 Gz/15 sec Tornado crews have to pass. They only have the anti-G-suit, no vest.

 

- For an article about the centrifuge training (beside being a reserve officer and flight crew in the Luftwaffe I am an aviation journalist in civil life) I was given 10 Gz without the anti-G-suit attached back in 1999. I didn't passed out, but I get very blue feet afterwards from the blood that was pushed down my legs. Of course, I did the M1 manuever which every pilot shoud do under G-load, tensing the stomach muscles and pressing the breathe to keep the blood in the upper half of the body. That means You enhance Your G-tolerance by 1 G.

 

- I am lucky to have a very high G-tolerance even if I was 184 cm tall because I have a shorter upperbody and longer legs. Actually, as it already said in this thread, short compact people usually have a higher G-tolerance than tall slender ones. And of course all depends also on physical fitness. Believe me, I have to train a lot to keep my Eurofighter clearance in my age!

 

The guys I fly with online every Friday evening always start laughing when they hear me breathing in the TS as soon as I pull the stick in a dogfight or on a pull-up after a ground attack as I instinctively start my M1 maneuver after four decades of doing so in real life ... 

 

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by MiGCap

[R33GZ]

Great to hear from guys with actual real world experience. Thanks for throwing your 2 bucks in! ?

[69th_Mobile_BBQ]

There is the question of feedback forces from the controls and how it affects endurance.  For example, a plane that's fly-by-wire is probably to feel the same no matter what the plane's speed and orientation.  A plane that is cables and pulleys with be much different. One pilot will only have to contend with G-forces, while the other will also have to deal with the varying "weight" of the stick and rudder throughout the flight, regardless of whether the plane is cruising or fighting.  

Since WW2 planes don't have fly-by-wire but do have a variety of systems, such as cables and pulleys, limited hydraulics and even electric motors, each plane probably has to be individually "tuned" in the sim.  

To a certain point, it probably is fair to say that certain planes should wear a pilot out faster than others.  IMO, people that fly 1 plane and say, "I never blackout" and then fly a different plane and say, "why do I get tired so fast?", are maybe not understanding the difference between the 2 and are flying each one the same way.

 

As for the plane in the OP's video, I'm sure that even if it does have an "un-assisted" control setup, it's a very light plane that's carrying no ordinance and is not being flown to the max limits it's capable of.  If I recall correctly, the reason the dogfight company uses that particular model is because it's almost impossible to not be able to recover from a stall or spin. The pilot would basically have to intentionally use contrary inputs to recovery to make the plane unrecoverable.  That probably means that even in extreme conditions, the controls are pretty light.

[RossMarBow]

The G system clearly needs a lot of work.

All the points made here when fully explained demonstrate that.

 

The current system is not flawless at all.

It is clearly a system that is completely lacking any detail.

 

Some parts of it are clearly the product of forum warriors, with no basis in basic facts or evidence.
The primary example of this is the so-called seat angle advantage, when the angle measured is plainly wrong.
I should not even be in the game at all, because there's no restriction on the players head position, so how can you then say an angled seat would provide an advantage.
To be precise the D9 seat angle was measured incorrectly because it excluded the padded head rest, not that it matters anyway cause the in-game pilot can stick his head wherever which would completely nullify an advantage. 

 

Also the current system has the pilot far to resistant to negative G.

 

Also, the big elephant in the room is multiplayer, for single player it does not really matter much at all at the end of the day.

 

The current system needs to be returned to a universal system.

 

There's no point including some things in a system when you are missing the majority of everything else.

 

If you are missing 90% of the puzzle pieces, you don't have a jigsaw you have a blank canvas, and should get out the paint roller.

[RossMarBow]

On 8/10/2023 at 1:30 PM, BlitzPig_EL said:

No offence meant to anyone, but this is typical simmers protecting their turf stuff.  "Real pilots and pilot accounts are never to be trusted, because I have thousands of hours of chair time, and I've read every book of stats and counted every freaking rivet".   Ever seen some real sim grognards at an airshow talking to the people that fly the real thing?  It's pretty often very embarrassing. 

 

Just more of the "harder is more real mantra that has given us overly twitchy ground handling, slip on a banana peel stall departures, overly sensitive G load effects, the accusations of "flying on rails" FMs, etc...

 

Quite a few simmers have been at this so long that each new iteration has to be harder than the real thing just to give them a challenge.

 

I disagree with this 
Not because you are wrong, or even going in the wrong direction, but you didn't go far enough

 

Most IL-2 players play single player - so they don't actually want a challenge 
G model is a game mechanic that gives them very little in terms of good game play its mostly a non-issue or something they turn off

 

And last time I asked around the majority of multiplayer pilots wanted a more simpler i.e. universal G model, that made the game more competitive and based on player skill.
The G model needs to be conducive to good dog fights.
Not some esoteric system with weird ultimately pointless features
This is a game after all, and games need good game mechanics for good game play. 

 

 

The recent changes regarding input forces are good though.
I know the 109 changes were quite divisive but it adds a lot to the game.
Considering the input forces needed at different speeds for different planes adds a lot.
Hopefully they spend more time on this.
 

Edited September 7, 2023 by RossMarBow

[Aurora_Stealth]

57 minutes ago, RossMarBow said:

The G system clearly needs a lot of work.

All the points made here when fully explained demonstrate that.

 

The current system is not flawless at all.

It is clearly a system that is completely lacking any detail.

 

Some parts of it are clearly the product of forum warriors, with no basis in basic facts or evidence.
The primary example of this is the so-called seat angle advantage, when the angle measured is plainly wrong.
I should not even be in the game at all, because there's no restriction on the players head position, so how can you then say an angled seat would provide an advantage.
To be precise the D9 seat angle was measured incorrectly because it excluded the padded head rest, not that it matters anyway cause the in-game pilot can stick his head wherever which would completely nullify an advantage . 

 

Also, the big elephant in the room is multiplayer, for single player it does not really matter much at all at the end of the day.

 

The current system needs to be returned to a universal system.

 

There's no point including some things in a system when you are missing the majority of everything else.

 

If you are missing 90% of the puzzle pieces, you don't have a jigsaw you have a blank canvas, and should get out the paint roller. 

 

Look... I hate to have to say this, but by virtue... you yourself are a forum warrior - so I'd love to know where your facts or evidence is to the contrary.

 

These particular hardline comments are a difficult pill to swallow... how do you expect anyone to create and program a flawless system? all systems have flaws... this particular system in IL-2 takes into account more elements, data and research than most if not all other sims of its kind. I've re-linked some of the info outlined about the sim from the below developer diary.

 

 

The developers have written and outlined extensively the scientific data and background on their modelling and explains the limitations, many of these elements are not considered in other sims - and are thus not that sophisticated or accurate. The people who have shaped this system's development are pilots and engineers alike who have helped support and guide it, including shedding light on recent research.

 

If you intend to rubbish something, and make these kinds of opinionated statements... then please first come up with some scientific and statistical evidence that actually might back it up. A video based on one guy who is athletic and has access to an aircraft in a convenient modern day situation doesn't justify changing a whole system. Asking for a more simplistic system suggests its just not a convenient system for you, perhaps you can just switch off pilot physiology then as its not important to you?

 

Just because something is not perfect in every possible way to your satisfaction doesn't mean its 90% wrong. That is just you trying to bend everything into your world view, and its an extremely ungrateful and unhelpful attitude considering the time spent developing the sophisticated and overall accurate system that is in-game.

 

If you want to improve something, please concentrate your effort instead on providing actual detailed scientific data that is to the contrary.

Edited September 7, 2023 by Aurora_Stealth

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

3 часа назад, Aurora_Stealth сказал:

 

Look... I hate to have to say this, but by virtue... you yourself are a forum warrior - so I'd love to know where your facts or evidence is to the contrary.

 

These particular hardline comments are a difficult pill to swallow... how do you expect anyone to create and program a flawless system? all systems have flaws... this particular system in IL-2 takes into account more elements, data and research than most if not all other sims of its kind. I've re-linked some of the info outlined about the sim from the below developer diary.

 

 

The developers have written and outlined extensively the scientific data and background on their modelling and explains the limitations, many of these elements are not considered in other sims - and are thus not that sophisticated or accurate. The people who have shaped this system's development are pilots and engineers alike who have helped support and guide it, including shedding light on recent research.

 

If you intend to rubbish something, and make these kinds of opinionated statements... then please first come up with some scientific and statistical evidence that actually might back it up. A video based on one guy who is athletic and has access to an aircraft in a convenient modern day situation doesn't justify changing a whole system. Asking for a more simplistic system suggests its just not a convenient system for you, perhaps you can just switch off pilot physiology then as its not important to you?

 

Just because something is not perfect in every possible way to your satisfaction doesn't mean its 90% wrong. That is just you trying to bend everything into your world view, and its an extremely ungrateful and unhelpful attitude considering the time spent developing the sophisticated and overall accurate system that is in-game.

 

If you want to improve something, please concentrate your effort instead on providing actual detailed scientific data that is to the contrary.

I have a strong belief that the appearance of G-forces game mechanics is actually related to the features of FM in Il 2. Almost no one asked the developers to introduce this system. Why did they do it if no one asked for it? The appearance of this G-forces system was preceded by very heated forum wars, where many criticized FM exploits, jerking, and so on. And IMHO AnPetrovich presented us with a new model of the G-forces system. Obviously instead of changing the FM. Now, during the jerking, you start having visual problems and the G-forces system should force you to abandon the FM and DM exploits. But instead we got a lot of new problems. Sitting at the computer, you cannot take into account the state of the virtual pilot properly in this system, this only leads to frustration. And it absolutely did not get rid of FM exploits. In addition, a significant advantage of some aircraft due to the seating position IMHO in my opinion looks unfounded. There is enough space in the mustang, but instead of a seat as in the 109th, the designers preferred to create a special suit...

In any case, I hope this system will be revised. It really breaks the game mechanics too much

 

Edited September 7, 2023 by -332FG-Red_Pilot

[150_GIAP-Red_Dragon]

PS In addition, I absolutely believe the author of this topic. It makes no sense to fly on an IRL plane just to add some lies on the forum.

 

[Monksilver]

6 hours ago, RossMarBow said:

Most IL-2 players play single player - so they don't actually want a challenge 
G model is a game mechanic that gives them very little in terms of good game play its mostly a non-issue or something they turn off

 

It is very rare that I play multiplayer and can assure you that it is nonsense to say I don't actually want a challenge. I have no issue with the G model and have no difficulty pushing the limits of what the pilot can take but always having the sense to not push it so far he blacks out.

[RossMarBow]

On 9/8/2023 at 12:50 AM, Aurora_Stealth said:

 

Look... I hate to have to say this, but by virtue... you yourself are a forum warrior - so I'd love to know where your facts or evidence is to the contrary.

 

These particular hardline comments are a difficult pill to swallow... how do you expect anyone to create and program a flawless system? all systems have flaws... this particular system in IL-2 takes into account more elements, data and research than most if not all other sims of its kind. I've re-linked some of the info outlined about the sim from the below developer diary.

 

 

The developers have written and outlined extensively the scientific data and background on their modelling and explains the limitations, many of these elements are not considered in other sims - and are thus not that sophisticated or accurate. The people who have shaped this system's development are pilots and engineers alike who have helped support and guide it, including shedding light on recent research.

 

If you intend to rubbish something, and make these kinds of opinionated statements... then please first come up with some scientific and statistical evidence that actually might back it up. A video based on one guy who is athletic and has access to an aircraft in a convenient modern day situation doesn't justify changing a whole system. Asking for a more simplistic system suggests its just not a convenient system for you, perhaps you can just switch off pilot physiology then as its not important to you?

 

Just because something is not perfect in every possible way to your satisfaction doesn't mean its 90% wrong. That is just you trying to bend everything into your world view, and its an extremely ungrateful and unhelpful attitude considering the time spent developing the sophisticated and overall accurate system that is in-game.

 

If you want to improve something, please concentrate your effort instead on providing actual detailed scientific data that is to the contrary.

I agree with you and the article you linked 
 

"The poll results showed that 60% of players are quite happy with the current model (494 out of 821 unique users on both forums, excluding the extra 31 votes of those who voted twice, i.e. on two forums). And 40% of players would like us to make adjustments to this model.

 

I had carefully read all your comments on the polls. In general, there were more players satisfied with the model on the Western forum, so I conducted a more detailed analysis of that thread and found that 63 out of 381 Western users who chose option 1 (“leave everything as it is”), nevertheless, in comments have written a number of requests for changes in the model.

 

Thus, it became clear to us that the community was divided in opinions approximately 52/48. This means that we cannot leave this situation unattended and we need to think carefully about what can be improved in our model."

Also this section explains what needs to happen here 
"Backrest angle

 

Over the past year, there were many attempts by some players to prove that there are differences in the endurance of the pilots of one or another coalition. Although the physiological model of a pilot was the same and did not depend in any way on the plane in which he was sitting. However, now in the new model of physiology, while still remaining the common model for every pilot, the peculiarities of the aircraft cockpit in which the pilot sits are taken into account. Namely, we are talking about the backrest angle. As you know [I don't], tilting the seat back significantly increases the pilot's tolerance to G-load. This is due to a decrease in the difference in hydrostatic blood pressure between the heart’s level and the head’s (eyes) level. For example, tilting the seat back by 30° increases the maximum G-load-sustaining capacity by about 15%.

 

Many researchers also attach importance to the position of the legs. For example, the Spitfire even had two pedal positions: a lower one for normal flight and a higher one for aerobatics. It was assumed that in the elevated position of the legs, the outflow of blood from the head to the legs decreases under the action of +Gs. However, a number of experiments have shown that this effect is negligible, and, nevertheless, the angle of inclination of the pilot's upper body plays a much larger role. The new model takes this angle into account, which on all highly maneuverable aircraft in our simulator ranges from 0 ° (MC.202 series VIII) to 22.5 ° (MiG-3), averaging about 10-15° for different planes."

Unless the in-game pilots head is restricted to the angle stated this should not be in the game.
A the seat angles are not even properly measured I have already posted a thread covering all the facts of this.
Raising the legs is the only thing here that actually applies to the game as leg position is not player controlled and the player can't stick their legs wherever they want.

 

AEthelraedUnraed and you both talk about things that are not factors.
Weather and physical effort. 
So it is unclear if you are fine with the current system as you state, or you actually want a more accurate system.

I however think a line needs to be drawn on what is and what isn't included, neither of your suggestions or seat position make any sense.

 

 

Edited September 8, 2023 by RossMarBow

[[CPT]Crunch]

Not a dime nor zero time if there's something better being cooked in the oven.  But who the hell knows.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

How in word you believe that they gonna change anything if that is not a bug but just a way of implementation G forces. They are focused on the new project. 

For competitive perspective - dueling or fighting, 1 vs many  in the scenario mission the new G model just make it less fun for a pilot who knows how to be effective in fight on the edge of the plane, now it's fight on the edge of the body tolerance of the pilot. 

[RossMarBow]

13 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

How in word you believe that they gonna change anything if that is not a bug but just a way of implementation G forces. They are focused on the new project. 

For competitive perspective - dueling or fighting, 1 vs many  in the scenario mission the new G model just make it less fun for a pilot who knows how to be effective in fight on the edge of the plane, now it's fight on the edge of the body tolerance of the pilot. 

 

I don't understand the new project thing?

I thought Jason was doing a new project, and il-2 team was continuing development?