Brief Room Episode 10: Flight Model Q&A Session

[LukeFF]

In part 2 of our video session with lead engineer Roman "Gavrick" Kovalenko, your questions about flight modeling are answered, and we share a bit about what will come after Korea.

 

 

[[CPT]Crunch]

Big problem with your flap theory is the drag and lift parameters are for the most part only tested with approach and landing angles in mind.  Show us tests where anyone actually checked them deployed fully at high Angles of Attack.  Betting those are rare and only done on certain fighters deliberately designed for limited deployed combat flaps.

 

Some of these aircraft in game have manuals published with actual explicit warnings flaps are not to be used in positive pitch up angles.  

Edited September 25, 2024 by [CPT]Crunch

[Avimimus]

We'll let Han clarify what he meant with regards to desiring to work on carrier technology earlier instead of drop-tanks (and any implications about the strategy of other developers). It isn't really my place to clarify a comment like that.

 

Let's keep the discussion on the flight models - that was most of the Q&A and should be the focus of this thread.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

So the airframe is a solid body with FM, I hope to see at least  in graphic layer that wings do flex and airframe and objects inside cockpit does shakes as in real plane. But not in the way GB  cockpit shakes - head shake, where it's just a view shaking and in VR is off because you would not stand it 🤮😅

Don't want to fly a brick again, especially in VR 🙄 

 

Audio and visual feedback are very important in the 1G sim chair 😅

Edited September 26, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

Well, it seems that developers think I am part of a niche of less than 3% of the players that would enjoy the possibility of the pilots suffering haemorrhages. At least I'm happy that they answered my question, although I don't agree with the response. I thought it would be quite simple to implement, not unreallistic although perhaps it wouldn't happen very often, and the possibility of dying slowly interesting. 

Some friend of my squadron proposed the possibility of hemorrhoids instead of haemorrages. 😁

And if a team is needed to rescue/kidnap Andrei out of the hands of Microsoft, I volunteer. 

Edited September 26, 2024 by LF_Mark_Krieger

[=MERCS=JenkemJunkie]

Has anyone ever been shot in the d*** while flying? I know its a meme that people will sit on their helmets in a helicopter, but do pilots ever take measures against that?

[Han]

47 minutes ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

Well, it seems that developers think I am part of a niche of less than 3% of the players that would enjoy the possibility of the pilots suffering haemorrhages. At least I'm happy that they answered my question, although I don't agree with the response. I thought it would be quite simple to implement, not unreallistic although perhaps it wouldn't happen very often, and the possibility of dying slowly interesting. 

Some friend of my squadron proposed the possibility of hemorrhoids instead of haemorrages. 😁

And if a team is needed to rescue/kidnap Andrei out of the hands of Microsoft, I volunteer. 

 

Unfortunatelly, our question table don't show author (except case if author have put his nickname to the question). So it was yours one.

Personally as simmer - I'm not against that. More realism - more fun! ))

But to be fair - almost any 7.62 wound is near to be fatal. All stories like the Japan pilot with 20mm in his head returned to base - it's kind of "survivorship bias". One have returned and now we all think that it's like a possible. While there 1000 others with heads exploded like a watermelon after such hit. 1 of 1000 - it's 0.1% and its equal to impossible. But having such exceptional example everyone wants to see such case in the game.

 

So bleeding - 7.62 will cause much bleeding anyway even if you're alife. In reality. So in reality in 999 of 1000 cases 7.62 body hit means instant or allmost instant death, or urgent RTB if it's close enough.

 

We're much afraid that such approach will not be popular ((

10 minutes ago, =MERCS=JenkemJunkie said:

Has anyone ever been shot in the d*** while flying? I know its a meme that people will sit on their helmets in a helicopter, but do pilots ever take measures against that?

I heard that some pilots have put metal plates under the butt. In helicopthers there are bottom armour. So yes, some kind of measures for Cod Piece protection are taken ))

1 hour ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

So the airframe is a solid body with FM, I hope to see at least  in graphic layer that wings do flex and airframe and objects inside cockpit does shakes as in real plane. But not in the way GB  cockpit shakes - head shake, where it's just a view shaking and in VR is off because you would not stand it 🤮😅

Don't want to fly a brick again, especially in VR 🙄 

 

Audio and visual feedback are very important in the 1G sim chair 😅

 

It's possible allready, but it cost too much in FPS, this why we don't do that still. But in case of damaged airceaft there will be dynamic graphical features which will statisfy you.

19 hours ago, [CPT]Crunch said:

Some of these aircraft in game have manuals published with actual explicit warnings flaps are not to be used in positive pitch up angles.  

Emmm what do you mean? Pitch angle is allways positive on landing where flaps extended to maximum.

[Avimimus]

Hello everyone, I've moved some posts to the Combat Pilot thread (in the Other Sims forum). Let's keep discussion in this thread about the development of Il-2 Korea, the Pacific, and flight models... and have any discussions about Jason Williams or Combat Pilot take place in the appropriate thread (in the Other Sims forum).

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

5 hours ago, Han said:

 

Unfortunatelly, our question table don't show author (except case if author have put his nickname to the question). So it was yours one.

Personally as simmer - I'm not against that. More realism - more fun! ))

But to be fair - almost any 7.62 wound is near to be fatal. All stories like the Japan pilot with 20mm in his head returned to base - it's kind of "survivorship bias". One have returned and now we all think that it's like a possible. While there 1000 others with heads exploded like a watermelon after such hit. 1 of 1000 - it's 0.1% and its equal to impossible. But having such exceptional example everyone wants to see such case in the game.

 

So bleeding - 7.62 will cause much bleeding anyway even if you're alife. In reality. So in reality in 999 of 1000 cases 7.62 body hit means instant or allmost instant death, or urgent RTB if it's close enough.

 

We're much aftrair that such approach will not be popular ((

I heard that some pilots have put metal plates under the butt. In helicopthers there are bottom armour. So yes, some kind of measures for Cod Piece protection are taken ))

 

It's possible allready, but it cost too much in FPS, this why we don't do that still.

I understand your point of view. I don't think it's easy to have data about wounds and of course there is the possibility of survivor bias. But I think we have to take into account that shots don't occur always clean. Bullets arrive to the pilot after penetraring through fuselage of the plane, fuel storage where they loose a lot of energy through the liquids, and other pieces so they could cause not so severe wounds, specially if in the legs, arms, shoulders... I don't know much about flight models and even less about programming, but as a nurse with some experience in wounds I can say the body sometimes is extremely resistant or extremely fragile, depending on the type of wound and organs affected. Of course there can be other wounds caused by shrapfnel, commotion, burns, etc. I understand that doing a exhaustive physiological simulation would be spending too much time that could be used implementing something more useful. But I really like the actual model in GB (temporary commotion, different level of wounds and instant death) and I think it's not necessary to do much more and just that perhaps would be interesting to do some simple modification to add this possibility sometimes. In fact, one time happened to me that the oxigen system in my Typhoon was damaged, so I got slowly intoxicated with CO2, but wasn't aware of that to open the canopy and I thought that I was loosing blood and tried to get back to my airfield as fast as I could. I absolutelly enjoyed a lot that moment (perhaps it is true that I'm a little masochist and an strange player). I think something like that sometimes would be nice (perhaps with different speeds in the blood loss). Anyway thank you for your time and your response. Keep on the good job! 😊

Edited September 26, 2024 by LF_Mark_Krieger

[Avimimus]

It might be nice to have a difficulty option for 'realistic aircrew damage'... increase the incentive to land as quickly as possible if seriously wounded. Even breaking up the pilot into a couple of different hit-boxes might be interesting (especially for WWI).

[Han]

3 minutes ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

I understand your point of view. I don't think it's easy to have data about wounds and of course there is the possibility of survivor bias. But I think we have to take into account that shots don't occur always clean. Bullets arrive to the pilot after penetraring through fuselage of the plane and other pieces so they could loose energy. I don't know much about flight models and even less about programming, but as a nurse with some experience in wounds I can say the body sometimes is extremely resistant or extremely fragile, depending on the type of wound. Of course there can be other wounds caused by shrapfnel, commotion, etc. I understand that doing a exhaustive psysiological simulation would be spending too much time that could be used implementing something more useful. But I really like the actual model in GB (temporary commotion, different level of wounds and instant death) and I think it's not necessary to do much more and just that perhaps would be interesting to do some simple modification to add this possibility sometimes. In fact, one time happened to me that the oxugen system in my typhoon was damaged, so I got slowly intoxicated with CO2, but wasn't aware of that to open the canopy and thought that I was loosing blood and tried to get back to my airfield as fast as I could. I absolutelly enjoyed a lot that moment (perhaps it is true that I'm a little masochist and an strange player). I think something like that sometimes would be nice (perhaps with different speeds in the blood loss). Anyway thank you for your time and your response. Keep on the good job! 😊

 

How fast it should bleed then? Ok, for instance, we have wound which have make us only 40% of health left - how fast it should expire?

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

23 minutes ago, Han said:

 

How fast it should bleed then? Ok, for instance, we have wound which have make us only 40% of health left - how fast it should expire?

I'm not a programmer, but I think we could ad a simple random system that could do something like that for not instant kills, perhaps:

10% of possibility: very fast bleeding (important blood vessels/organs affected) that would substract 10-20% of players life per minute. You know you can do nothing about it and you are going to die in seconds/minutes, but it's not totally instantaneous.

30% of possibility: quite fast bleeding that would substract 1%-10% of players life per minute. There is the possibility that you arrive at the nearest airfield to recieve medical assistance.

60% of possibility: Although injured, there is no extra loss of blood that makes pilot's condition worse through time, so you can decide continuing your mission or RTB depending on how you feel.

Of course this is a very fast idea with the numbers invented just by a bit of intuition and not knowing what formulas do you use. If I could get data about pilot wounds in combat perhaps I could propose something a bit better if it can help you. Anyway, I think some simple system like that would be better than nothing as a difficulty option like @Avimimus proposed, because I understand that some players would prefer just dying less.

Thanks for listening!
 
 

Edited September 26, 2024 by LF_Mark_Krieger

[Avimimus]

Speaking of probabilities and damage models - is there any chance of having an RNG determine whether or not a projectile successfully passes through a tree? Having some chance of at least a few projectiles largely passing through the canopy of a tree would add a lot to realism and gameplay.

[Han]

It's good idea. But "contra" here is that in Multiplayer any random is not appricated by combatants - it's allway a great buttheart when my loss caused by random...

1 minute ago, Avimimus said:

Speaking of probabilities and damage models - is there any chance of having an RNG determine whether or not a projectile successfully passes through a tree? Having some chance of at least a few projectiles largely passing through the canopy of a tree would add a lot to realism and gameplay.

"Tree" - you mean wooden parts?

Bullet may pierce it allready (with loss of energy offcourse)

[LF_Mark_Krieger]

1 minute ago, Han said:

It's good idea. But "contra" here is that in Multiplayer any random is not appricated by combatants - it's allway a great buttheart when my loss caused by random...

I understand that, but can happen too when sometime you fly high and anyway the flak gets you...

There are different profiles of players. Some that can get more frustrated and some that would prioritize maximum realism possible over anything. I would even have fun just detecting a problem in the engine taking off and having to rtb and cancel the mission. I understand that I'm part of a very small niche of players that like reenactment or realism over more arcade games. that's true. 😅

[Han]

5 hours ago, LF_Mark_Krieger said:

I understand that, but can happen too when sometime you fly high and anyway the flak gets you...

There are different profiles of players. Some that can get more frustrated and some that would prioritize maximum realism possible over anything. I would even have fun just detecting a problem in the engine taking off and having to rtb and cancel the mission. I understand that I'm part of a very small niche of players that like reenactment or realism over more arcade games. that's true. 😅

You re so close to ensure me to do that... Im hardcore sim fan, to be fair. Ive refunded Snow Runner when realised that they removed joystick control you know )) Dangerous situation...

[LuftManu]

21 minutes ago, Han said:

You re so close to ensure me to do that... Im hardcore sim fan, to be fair. Ive refunded Snow Runner when realised that they removed joystick control you know )) Dangerous situation...

Han, if my words help...

I am also all for it! I am friend of Mark, and I think we are all here distinguished gentlemen in this "Health for the pilot conversation", that 3% of super realism 😁 
I think he has cool ideas about this, same as Avimimus.

And as I think, this could be enabled like "Enhanced health" or something like that to appeal everybody. No extra work with an option to disable it for those who don't want random

I think it was never done before... and I am sure the team wants to make the extra step to make this an awesome sim from the foundation 🙂

So yeah! 

[Aapje]

One thing that I consider immersion breaking and a little disappointing in GB is that if you are injured, it's just very generic, with no difference in how/where you are hit.

 

It would be cool to get told where you got hit and even nicer if it would have different consequences depending on the injury. Although it is of course difficult to mimic the injury for real, without going around to people's house and hurting them. But perhaps some basic diversity in wounds could be achieved, with wounds that bleed out and those that don't. With wounds that impact ability to pull G and those that do not, etc.

 

And it would be more realistic to have a chance at a relatively minor wound that still results in a wound badge.

[Avimimus]

8 hours ago, Han said:

"Tree" - you mean wooden parts?

Bullet may pierce it allready (with loss of energy offcourse)

 

I meant forests along roads/speedtree.

 

If you fire 100 rounds of 20mm into a tree canopy atleast some should only hit leaves and pass through the 'crown' of the tree without detonating.

 

So adding an RNG that allowed some percentage of rounds through the forests would make strafing. more realistic.

 

An even faster fix would be to make some ammunition types be uneffected by trees/forests - so part of the machinegun belting would be stopped but, say, AP rounds would pass through. That is less ideal than javing the impact of the tree on the round be randomised though.

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

19 hours ago, Han said:

It's possible allready, but it cost too much in FPS, this why we don't do that still

In GB I have dozen fps  headroom and this in absent of DLSS (which you could add to new engine), approximately how many fps it would cost? This fps cost is mainly in graphics thread or in game FM or physic thread? 

Edited September 27, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Han]

11 hours ago, Aapje said:

One thing that I consider immersion breaking and a little disappointing in GB is that if you are injured, it's just very generic, with no difference in how/where you are hit.

First point - there is difference. It's very basic but it is - body shot and headshot have much differ effect.

Second - make it more differ - it's make biosim inside the flight sim )) For instance - my left arm hit, I can no longer control the throttle. Ot leg hit - I can no longer control rudder and wheel brake. And so on. A bit too much for us at the moment ))

10 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

I meant forests along roads/speedtree.

 

If you fire 100 rounds of 20mm into a tree canopy atleast some should only hit leaves and pass through the 'crown' of the tree without detonating.

 

So adding an RNG that allowed some percentage of rounds through the forests would make strafing. more realistic.

 

An even faster fix would be to make some ammunition types be uneffected by trees/forests - so part of the machinegun belting would be stopped but, say, AP rounds would pass through. That is less ideal than javing the impact of the tree on the round be randomised though.

 

Oh, I see. Yep, would be nice one day to do that.

19 minutes ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

In GB I have dozen fps  headroom and this in absent of DLSS (which you could add to new engine), approximately how many fps it would cost? This fps cost is mainly in graphics thread or in game FM or physic thread? 

I think both, but graphics in first row. Especialy when there is formation on the screen.

[Aapje]

20 minutes ago, Han said:

Second - make it more differ - it's make biosim inside the flight sim )) For instance - my left arm hit, I can no longer control the throttle.

 

There is also the issue that the actual pilot would probably adapt as much as possible, and work the throttle with his other hand, now and then. So it would be more like not being able to use the stick and throttle at the same time

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

28 minutes ago, Han said:

think both, but graphics in first row. Especialy when there is formation on the screen

I think that graphics fps decrease is least problem because present GPUs are very strong for 2D i meant not VR ,especially in 1080p. In GB I have more than 100 fps on average @ 3440x1440, I have middle class GPU.

I just saying you could rethink adding those things it's great for immersion and become standard in competition. Maybe optional if you think that most of us are using potato PC 😂 . I assure most guys have strong PCs because it's sort of expensive hobby.

 

Btw could you care tell if you will implement DLSS?

Edited September 27, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Mysticpuma]

In regard to the flight model and especially the temperatures that Korea experienced, could icing play an issue? Maybe consideration for at least a visual representation of icing inside the canopy due to humidity, then gaining altitude quickly? 

CloD did have this effect, but it was removed due to bug issues with the engines that couldn't be resolved, but having a visual representation of icing inside the cockpit would be interesting to see? 

 

So I'm asking if a set of variables could trigger the effect:

 

Aircraft at 'x' altitude (where it is - x temp (x being cold!)) 

The aircraft descends rapidly to 'y' altitude or lower, where it is 'y' temp or lower. 

 

Pre-programmed visual effect of ice on canopy triggers if conditions are met. 

 

It's a visual effect triggered by a set of circumstances. Visual effects are created to make people feel immersed. Sitting in a VR cockpit (at some point) watching the canopy frost over would be very immersive (and probably concerning too!)

 

Bomb hits ground, bomb explodes, visual effect is triggered after a certain set of values are met.

 

Icing as a visual effect, it 'just' needs a set of values to be created to create 'just' a visual effect to be triggered. 

 

 

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Icing looks nice,  without consequences ( not saying about worst visibility) is fine with me,  control surfaces jamming can be frustrating to some folks 😂post FC PTSD😂

Edited September 27, 2024 by 1PL-Husar-1Esk

[Dagwoodyt]

Fantastic video series. Thank you!👍