PDA

View Full Version : the pilot factor



JG4_Helofly
04-21-2006, 05:20 AM
Hello,

After some topics like "Spitfire FM'S" and "When did the 109 become less that stellar" I asked myself why some things are not like in RL for exemple: why is the fw 190 not much better than spit Vb or such things.
I think the problem is that the pilot in the game can pull high G for hours and get never tired. The hard manoeuvre we see in the game will in RL only be possible one time at the beginning of the fight.
Now let's see how it affects the dogfights in IL2. In RL we know that bf 109 rarely go into a dogfight, it was mostly boom and zoom, but why? The answer could be that the controles of the 109 were to hard to move. A dogfight, espessialy at higher speeds, would be terrible for the pilot.
The fw 190 was known as a fighter who goes in the fight ( not like the 109 ). This was probably because the controles were light.
In the game it's the opposite: the 109 for hard dogfighting and the 190 only for hit and run.
That's also why the high rollrate of some planes are useless. In RL the ailerons or the spit were hard to move the fw 190 had light ailerons controles. If a spit was behinde a fw 190 it was difficult to shoot correctly and to follow the manoeuvres.

What I want to say is that the pilot factor in the sim would improve the realisme very very much. It's maybe the main "realisme boost" we could have in next sim's.

What do you think about it?

Jumoschwanz
04-21-2006, 06:01 AM
Nothing you think exists anywhere outside your skull.

lowfighter
04-21-2006, 07:16 AM
Yes it would be great to have pilot fatigue modelled (aircraft specific), in a similar way to the blackouts we have in the game. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Lucius_Esox
04-21-2006, 07:21 AM
Nothing you think exists anywhere outside your skull.


Outstanding! That explains everything to me, about everything http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

CMHQ_Rikimaru
04-21-2006, 07:29 AM
I agree in 100%.

anasteksi
04-21-2006, 07:57 AM
Now when all pilots have same force which thay use to move stick i think it would be nice to have same "g-endurance" for all pilots.. In example if you keep turning and turning and so on your pilot gets tired and you can't pull stick so hard anymore. This would add lot of immersion imho..

lowfighter
04-21-2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by anasteksi:
This would add lot of immersion imho..

I would be be very happy to pay Oleg and co. 30$
for an addon containg only this...

Takata_
04-21-2006, 08:37 AM
Originally posted by anasteksi:
Now when all pilots have same force which thay use to move stick i think it would be nice to have same "g-endurance" for all pilots.. In example if you keep turning and turning and so on your pilot gets tired and you can't pull stick so hard anymore. This would add lot of immersion imho..
- modelling an accurate flight model for each plane without the fatigue factor for the pilot is doing half the job towards accuracy.
It should work somehow like the engine "overheat" (a kind of gauge not displayed), but instead of losing the engine, a tired pilot would need to rest (not pulling Gs') to recover lost force but at a lesser level he started with. More frequent are the "overheats", less force he may recover and so on until totaly exhausted.
Such "fatigue" models certainly already exist as there is a lot of experimentation made about such factor and influences in real life (human fatigue in real condition vs heat/cold, altitude, lack of sleep, stress, etc. environments are studied deeply).
S~
Takata.

lowfighter
04-21-2006, 09:03 AM
Imagine the effect, offline or online one would have to fly in a cleaner way (and logically more realistic way), otherwise one simply wouldn't survive.

Von_Rat
04-21-2006, 09:21 AM
ww2 online actually models pilot fatigue. i can't beleive that this game, which is so much better in so many ways doesn't.

it would cut down on the,,,it takes 3 blue planes to down 1 spit ,,,,,whines alot.


btw,,, ive always wondered about the 09s doing the dogfighting and 190s bnzing.
if memory serves me right it was the opposite in real life. of course what real life pilots meant by dogfight, isn't the same as what most pilots here think it is.

JG7_X_MAN
04-21-2006, 09:51 AM
JG4_Helofly - For one to even being to consider the "Pilot Factor", one will have to make the biggest assumption of all:

Is this flight model correct?

Now to come to the conclusion that this FM is correct we will have to know for a fact that all forces that can affect an aircraft in flight have been modeled.

Now since we know that all possible atmospheric, physical and mechanical forces that do affect flight have not been modeled in this game - we can't say that the FM is correct.

So as the FM isn't correct - how can one expect a correct outcome from an incorrect model?

For an example - you referenced the Fw 190A-4 and it he historic proven fact that it did out perform the Spit Vb and was a match more with the Spit IXC. Now, if you research the Fw 190, there are little things that made it what it was that isn't modeled in the game. Example:

1. Its exceptional roll rate stemmed from it well balanced ailerons.

2. It aerodynamic design gave it a nose down attitude in level flight.

Also while on this subject - I€ll bring up a big issue.

The Spitfire flew with a slight nose up altitude in level flight when at mid-high altitude.

I don't have my book here at work - but there is documentation that a Few 190 pilot flew head on into a flight Spitfires and killed the leader with them not even seeing the Fw 190.

So when some things are not modeled correctly in a game - it's hard to get the correct outcome. However - for 39.99 - I think it's still a great buy.

RegRag1977
04-21-2006, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
Imagine the effect, offline or online one would have to fly in a cleaner way (and logically more realistic way), otherwise one simply wouldn't survive.

AMEN

RegRag1977
04-21-2006, 10:13 AM
I think all Aces round here are wearied about the noobs turning so easily without fatigue.

Fatigue will imply the end of noob hard turners "aces". It would mean the return of the Butcherbirds: too cool! Blood will rain again!

I agree to have fatigue modelled: this would be a major improvement for realism, and with that i'm sure the true aces won't whine so much about über planes or under modelled planes!

I WANT fatigue to be modelled!

PS nice topic!!!!!!

RCAF_Irish_403
04-21-2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Hello,

After some topics like "Spitfire FM'S" and "When did the 109 become less that stellar" I asked myself why some things are not like in RL for exemple: why is the fw 190 not much better than spit Vb or such things.
I think the problem is that the pilot in the game can pull high G for hours and get never tired. The hard manoeuvre we see in the game will in RL only be possible one time at the beginning of the fight.
Now let's see how it affects the dogfights in IL2. In RL we know that bf 109 rarely go into a dogfight, it was mostly boom and zoom, but why? The answer could be that the controles of the 109 were to hard to move. A dogfight, espessialy at higher speeds, would be terrible for the pilot.
The fw 190 was known as a fighter who goes in the fight ( not like the 109 ). This was probably because the controles were light.
In the game it's the opposite: the 109 for hard dogfighting and the 190 only for hit and run.
That's also why the high rollrate of some planes are useless. In RL the ailerons or the spit were hard to move the fw 190 had light ailerons controles. If a spit was behinde a fw 190 it was difficult to shoot correctly and to follow the manoeuvres.

What I want to say is that the pilot factor in the sim would improve the realisme very very much. It's maybe the main "realisme boost" we could have in next sim's.

What do you think about it?

Dead On...It would be great if you were limited to the ammount of heavy G's you could pull. Say, after you black-out once it becomes easier for the pilot to black out again in a easier turn

FPSOLKOR
04-21-2006, 10:17 AM
What I want to say is that the pilot factor in the sim would improve the realisme very very much. It's maybe the main "realisme boost" we could have in next sim's.

What do you think about it?

That is, WE NEED AN RPG! With possibility to increase not only ranks, but strength, ability to see the enemy from different distance etc!

lowfighter
04-21-2006, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by RCAF_Irish_403:
]

Dead On...It would be great if you were limited to the ammount of heavy G's you could pull. Say, after you black-out once it becomes easier for the pilot to black out again in a easier turn

Hey Irish this(blackout feature) is already in the game.
Cheers!

JG4_Helofly
04-21-2006, 01:48 PM
The two major things in the pilot fatigue would be high G and stiffy controles like in the bf 109. This would be enough factors for the beginning I think.

"
- modelling an accurate flight model for each plane without the fatigue factor for the pilot is doing half the job towards accuracy.
It should work somehow like the engine "overheat" (a kind of gauge not displayed), but instead of losing the engine, a tired pilot would need to rest (not pulling Gs') to recover lost force but at a lesser level he started with. More frequent are the "overheats", less force he may recover and so on until totaly exhausted.
Such "fatigue" models certainly already exist as there is a lot of experimentation made about such factor and influences in real life (human fatigue in real condition vs heat/cold, altitude, lack of sleep, stress, etc. environments are studied deeply)."

This would probably be the best way of modeling it. If you pull high G many times you would never be able to recover to 100%.

The dogfights would be more realistic abit like gun cams http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But the biggest advantage is that the pur performance of the fighter would not longer be the main point. At the moment we all fly the fighters to there limits, with pilot fatigue the performance would be less important. This mean that you will be able to down many la7 in a G6 early with correct flying http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
If you engage a spit with a fw 190 you would be able to out turn it if the spit pilot did many 5 g manoeuvres without recover.

A simple "overheat" for the pilot would change alot. The whinings would also be less because the pilot flight stil would be much more important.

A last thing: this should be a realism option! Otherwise there are probably many beginners who would loose the fun if they can't turn for hours like many guys want it.

RegRag1977
04-21-2006, 03:26 PM
But the biggest advantage is that the pur performance of the fighter would not longer be the main point. At the moment we all fly the fighters to there limits, with pilot fatigue the performance would be less important. This mean that you will be able to down many la7 in a G6 early with correct flying
If you engage a spit with a fw 190 you would be able to out turn it if the spit pilot did many 5 g manoeuvres without recover.

It's decided, JG4 Helofly, you're my new Guru!

Treetop64
04-21-2006, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Hello,

After some topics like "Spitfire FM'S" and "When did the 109 become less that stellar" I asked myself why some things are not like in RL for exemple: why is the fw 190 not much better than spit Vb or such things.
I think the problem is that the pilot in the game can pull high G for hours and get never tired. The hard manoeuvre we see in the game will in RL only be possible one time at the beginning of the fight.
Now let's see how it affects the dogfights in IL2. In RL we know that bf 109 rarely go into a dogfight, it was mostly boom and zoom, but why? The answer could be that the controles of the 109 were to hard to move. A dogfight, espessialy at higher speeds, would be terrible for the pilot.
The fw 190 was known as a fighter who goes in the fight ( not like the 109 ). This was probably because the controles were light.
In the game it's the opposite: the 109 for hard dogfighting and the 190 only for hit and run.
That's also why the high rollrate of some planes are useless. In RL the ailerons or the spit were hard to move the fw 190 had light ailerons controles. If a spit was behinde a fw 190 it was difficult to shoot correctly and to follow the manoeuvres.

What I want to say is that the pilot factor in the sim would improve the realisme very very much. It's maybe the main "realisme boost" we could have in next sim's.

What do you think about it?

I think you're absolutely spot-on! Pilot fatigue modelling is conspicuously absent from this sim, considering that IRL lengthy dogfighting in most of the aircraft modelled required a rare level of extreme physical strength.

How many of us - who have blackouts enabled - have gotten into turnfights in the sim where we "subjected" the "pilot" to numerous cases of nearly blacking out, during a single engagement? I can assure you that if the same was attempted in real life, no one would even come close to even acheiving that sort of physical feat!

One would simply be too exausted and nauseous just after a couple of high-G loads to continue doing it again, and again, and yet again, over and over, during the same fight - but still have the faculties to fly accurately enough to score hits on his adversary. Pilots of this quality were rare during the war (S. Sakai comes to mind - he once successfully, and single-handedly evaded fifteen F6 Hellcats by continuously looping and rolling. He was completely on the defensive, however, but was yet still able to bring his plane home without a scratch on it!).

Of course, to address this issue is to address the behavior of the AI. I've personally never been too vocal about this issue, but it is indeed a problem. At least for the offliner, there is no point in simulating pilot fatigue - beyond simple blackouts and redouts - if the AI can get away with performing superhuman and supermechanical feats...

danjama
04-21-2006, 04:06 PM
How the **** would Oleg or anyone go about modelling something random like fatigue correctly?! Its impossible. You guys are all crazy. **** i can see the whines now....

WTF!!!11!! Oleg my pilot tired after 2 tight turns, he couldnt even fly stra1t oleg jeezzze sort it out yea, damn my pilot is dead now caus of u fanx alot

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Sure it would be great, maybe as an OFFline feature. Your pilots physical characteristics could change over time such as resistance to G's and such, but as an online feature, it would open the door to a whole world of bull****.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 05:38 AM
For offliners it would also be great to have a stystem which don't allow you to fly on 100% in a campagne if you fly 5 or 6 missions a day.

As I said before, the whines about turning will probably become less.

At the moment it's s*** when you fly behinde en ennemi after a long dogfhight and he is still able to turn like the hell. If your aircraft is not better in performance you have very poor chances to win. All this f****** balancing would not be necessary.

rnzoli
04-22-2006, 06:05 AM
You are too optimistic. I like the idea definitely, but implemeting pilot fatigue would increase the difficulty to fly these planes, and the regular gaming crowd would either find their perfect excuse why this extra difficulty is non-realistic for them, or start whining about the whole feature altogether (Why I get tired after 3 turns, and not 4 turns, or at least 3.5, in my fav plane?! Oleg's conspiracy proven again!)

This falls into the same line as engine reliability: everyone wants it - as long it is someone else's engine that will explode in flight without warning, just because that someone else overheated it a little bit during previous battles. Only few people can accept that this would make their combat more difficult as well, not just others'.

lowfighter
04-22-2006, 06:41 AM
Hey Zoli,
one can have it as an option, one can turn it off or on. And I just have a feeling that almost everybody would like it in the end. If Oleg would try to implement it, of course it will have flaws and inconsistencies at the beginning, and accompaning whining too http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , but I strongly believe that the whole thing would be a revolution in flight sim.



Originally posted by rnzoli:
You are too optimistic. I like the idea definitely, but implemeting pilot fatigue would increase the difficulty to fly these planes, and the regular gaming crowd would either find their perfect excuse why this extra difficulty is non-realistic for them, or start whining about the whole feature altogether (Why I get tired after 3 turns, and not 4 turns, or at least 3.5, in my fav plane?! Oleg's conspiracy proven again!)

This falls into the same line as engine reliability: everyone wants it - as long it is someone else's engine that will explode in flight without warning, just because that someone else overheated it a little bit during previous battles. Only few people can accept that this would make their combat more difficult as well, not just others'.

CUJO_1970
04-22-2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
That's also why the high rollrate of some planes are useless. In RL the ailerons or the spit were hard to move the fw 190 had light ailerons controles. If a spit was behinde a fw 190 it was difficult to shoot correctly and to follow the manoeuvres.




Good points.

The FW190 could do fast direction changes that the Spitfire could not follow, and control forces were very light. This is why Eric Brown regarded the FW190 as more maneuverable than the Spitfire in everything but a tight turn.

Both Eric Brown and Johnnie Jonson have described low level close in knife-fights with FW190 Antons that ended in stalemates. Antons also got into knife-fights with Yaks and Las on the eastern front as well - there are plenty of combat reports and guncam footage.

Oleg has commented that the physics engine in this sim is _not_ "table-based" - and this is great - but this sim is still based almost purely on numbers it seems. And it is a fantastic sim - the best by far in existence IMO.

As far as simulation goes - this the golden age for planes like the Spitfire, P-38, and La-5/7 with their oversimplified controls and flight models.


It may be just as well that thing are as they are.

If accuracy becomes absolute - the planeset would be reduced probably to only two real alternatives to survive - Focke-Wulf or Mustang. This of course is considering that the best of the best - the Me-262 - will continue to be banned mostly.

So the sim as it currently is, allows many of the lesser aircraft like the Spitfires and P-38s to compete with the two kings of WWII piston-engine aircraft - Focke-Wulfs and Mustangs.

Pilot fatigue, accurate engine controls/management, and ==>inertia<== would be very interesting additions to the sim, and would really make the cream rise to the top.

rnzoli
04-22-2006, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by lowfighter:
I strongly believe that the whole thing would be a revolution in flight sim.
Sure, I agree to that. But are WE (the wider community) ready for this revolution? TrackIR is here for years, but it is still mentioned as a "cheat tool"... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

Okay, maybe I am too pessimistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif Bring it on! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 10:32 AM
Let's see. The pilot fatigue would be quite easy to implant ( basic things: high G and controle forces ), like the engine overheat.
After that it must be a realisme option to let the player choose if he want it or not.

I think that this is the only way to go a big step forward in Realisme.

RegRag1977
04-22-2006, 01:06 PM
Fatigue as a realism option would be too, too cool!
It would let the choice for all simers to change the way they pilot, (or to go on in an arcade way), just like other options...

We must have it, if we want to improve our skills and if we want to go closer to the real experience of WW2 Air fighting!!!!

Regards!

Viper2005_
04-22-2006, 02:17 PM
Be careful what you wish for.

The sustained turn performance of the Spitfire IX at +25 psi is such that it can pull around 3.7 g if flown at corner.

A reasonably fit young man might be expected to put up with that for quite some time.

Competition aerobatics sometimes features 4 minute sequences. At the unlimited level, competition pilots an pull 9 g.

Obviously pulling more g is harder work.

Since most fights last for rather less than 4 minutes, realistic fatigue is unlikely to significantly restrain the turning habbits of the average Spitfire pilot on the average dogfight server.

JG4_Helofly
04-22-2006, 02:32 PM
aerobatic pilots are trained for high G. I think that an average fighter pilot of wwII was not trained for high G. Most missions in war was only patrole without confrontations or real dogfights. I don't think that this is enough to keep you fit for high G.

Of course the shlow turning circle is "only" at 3,7 G but the spit pilot must maybe change direction with havy aileron forces or such things. Also a spit pilot on DF server will never turn during 20 minutes at 3.7 G. If he did it he will burn all his human energy cause turning a long time at 3.7 G is hard. Beleve me, I know a very sportive guy (marathon runner ) who was totaly "knock out" after some basic flight manoeuvres in an aerobatic plane. And this is not the point. We don't want pilot fatigue for an advantage for the no turning aircrafts but for realisme. How many use the turn advantage of the spit at high speeds? Many. The spit can turn extremly good at high speeds and pilots use it in DF. The bf 109 would fight in Boom and zoom every time cause of it's high rudder forces and the fw 190 would dogfight like it was in RL.

RegRag1977
04-22-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Be careful what you wish for.

The sustained turn performance of the Spitfire IX at +25 psi is such that it can pull around 3.7 g if flown at corner.

A reasonably fit young man might be expected to put up with that for quite some time.

Competition aerobatics sometimes features 4 minute sequences. At the unlimited level, competition pilots an pull 9 g.

Obviously pulling more g is harder work.

Since most fights last for rather less than 4 minutes, realistic fatigue is unlikely to significantly restrain the turning habbits of the average Spitfire pilot on the average dogfight server.

Wanting fatigue as a realism option is nothing against Spitfire pilots anyway: it will affect all simers. I think most of spitfire aces will be happy to have fatigue as a realism option.
And maybe it will improve others skills...

RegRag1977
04-22-2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
aerobatic pilots are trained for high G. I think that an average fighter pilot of wwII was not trained for high G. Most missions in war was only patrole without confrontations or real dogfights. I don't think that this is enough to keep you fit for high G.

Of course the shlow turning circle is "only" at 3,7 G but the spit pilot must maybe change direction with havy aileron forces or such things. Also a spit pilot on DF server will never turn during 20 minutes at 3.7 G. If he did it he will burn all his human energy cause turning a long time at 3.7 G is hard. Beleve me, I know a very sportive guy (marathon runner ) who was totaly "knock out" after some basic flight manoeuvres in an aerobatic plane. And this is not the point. We don't want pilot fatigue for an advantage for the no turning aircrafts but for realisme. How many use the turn advantage of the spit at high speeds? Many. The spit can turn extremly good at high speeds and pilots use it in DF. The bf 109 would fight in Boom and zoom every time cause of it's high rudder forces and the fw 190 would dogfight like it was in RL.

Yes and, what's the more aerobatics aircrafts are done for aerobatics and hard G. They have very sensitive and precise controls, what was not the case for most WW2 Fighters, as far as i know...
Pulling hard in an aerobatic aircraft, and doing the same in combat with a WW2 Fighter (altitude, stress, speed, having to react to the enemy's manoeuvers) seems to be two very different things.

Bearcat99
04-22-2006, 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Jumoschwanz:
Nothing you think exists anywhere outside your skull.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

I have to frame that one..... Lexx needs to add that to his sig.