PDA

View Full Version : About pilot's fatigue and others states



Manu-6S
06-16-2007, 02:26 AM
I would to discuss this argoment in a appropriate thread:


Originally posted by Ratsack:
I suspect there are a whole lot of things that aren't modeled - and

perhaps can't be modeled - that make our sim experience vastly

different to the real thing.

Real fear is one.

Real gravity is another.

The exhaustion of living at low pressure (high alt), on oxygen, for

hours.

The pain of a negative G red out.

The nausea involved in most violent combat moves.

etc...

I suspect there are a lot of things that make it all too easy in the

sim.


Playing with Red Orchestra I noticed that the soldier state effects are translated with Blur effect (that should be a DirectX function).

Blur is really a problem if you have to shoot and infact now granades don't need only for "kill" the player but also for disturb him (something like flash nades).

But a smart player can disable the blur option and what he has is something like the blackout in Il2 (even is more advanced, obviously): in this way he can still shoot easily even if a nade explodes a 5 meter of himself.

Something similar can be used in SoW (with blur option in the difficulty panel).

Do you imagine that?

Nausea:
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3975/nauseaqu0.gif

Black Out:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5862/blcakoutgifvd6.gif

But nausea and blackout carry also to lose coordination and arm's strengh, so IMO, it should be realistic to modify the stick control: now we have a the "pilot wounded" effect that is nice, but it should be used also for fatigue, while for the moviment coordination it should be nice to have a "random" stick movement (something like a random switch between controls... in a nausea effect you try to raise your nose when you, instead, rolling left your plane).

IMO this can be a great step in direction of realism.

The oxigen problem can be modelled this way too (blur and loose of forces in the arms...)

What do you think?

Manu-6S
06-16-2007, 02:26 AM
I would to discuss this argoment in a appropriate thread:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ratsack:
I suspect there are a whole lot of things that aren't modeled - and

perhaps can't be modeled - that make our sim experience vastly

different to the real thing.

Real fear is one.

Real gravity is another.

The exhaustion of living at low pressure (high alt), on oxygen, for

hours.

The pain of a negative G red out.

The nausea involved in most violent combat moves.

etc...

I suspect there are a lot of things that make it all too easy in the

sim.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Playing with Red Orchestra I noticed that the soldier state effects are translated with Blur effect (that should be a DirectX function).

Blur is really a problem if you have to shoot and infact now granades don't need only for "kill" the player but also for disturb him (something like flash nades).

But a smart player can disable the blur option and what he has is something like the blackout in Il2 (even is more advanced, obviously): in this way he can still shoot easily even if a nade explodes a 5 meter of himself.

Something similar can be used in SoW (with blur option in the difficulty panel).

Do you imagine that?

Nausea:
http://img242.imageshack.us/img242/3975/nauseaqu0.gif

Black Out:
http://img243.imageshack.us/img243/5862/blcakoutgifvd6.gif

But nausea and blackout carry also to lose coordination and arm's strengh, so IMO, it should be realistic to modify the stick control: now we have a the "pilot wounded" effect that is nice, but it should be used also for fatigue, while for the moviment coordination it should be nice to have a "random" stick movement (something like a random switch between controls... in a nausea effect you try to raise your nose when you, instead, rolling left your plane).

IMO this can be a great step in direction of realism.

The oxigen problem can be modelled this way too (blur and loose of forces in the arms...)

What do you think?

MrMojok
06-16-2007, 02:29 AM
Some kind of way to model pilot fatigue, to prevent everyone from endlessly doing max-G turns, would be nice.

You could theoretically run into someone on a more-or-less empty server online and have a fifteen-minute dogfight consisting of nothing but high-G manuevers. Would never happen in real life, not for that long. Someone would tire out.

Blutarski2004
06-16-2007, 07:04 AM
Manu,

I have no idea how your ideas might affect code complexity, but I think they are EXCELLENT.

RegRag1977
06-16-2007, 07:12 AM
Yes, Excellent! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Blood_Splat
06-16-2007, 07:36 AM
The way we fly we would need to be like this guy lol.
http://www.killsometime.com/Pictures/images/Muscles.jpg

JG4_Helofly
06-16-2007, 07:38 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif
For me pilot fatigue is the most important thing after FM and DM.
It would make dogfights much more realistic and poor turner would be able to turn with better turner if one pilot is tired and the other is top fit. At the moment, plane performance is the only factore if the pilots are about equal. Only 1m/s in climb or half a second in turn can make a huge difference because you push the plane to it's limits and that for hours. A fatigue system would decrease the importance of pure performance and planes like the 109G6 would be much more attractive and would have a chance in realistic senarios against its opponents.

Pilot who flys with the brain would win. Rookies who are always pulling on the stick would loose even in greatly supperior planes.

I imagine the fatigue model like this:
At the beginning you have 100% and a barre or something like that to show you how tired you pilot is. If you pull high G manoeuvres the barre would drop. The more and longer you pull G's the more the pilot get tired and is not longer able to pull on the stick with the same force. If you fly straight at about 1 G, the pilot would slowly recover. At the beginning he would recover quickly some %, but the closer he comes to 100% the slower the recover.

Such a system would be a huge realism boost and pilots would have to fly like in RL. Poor planes would also become more interesting.

So please Oleg, if you read this think about it.

Manu-6S
06-16-2007, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I have no idea how your ideas might affect code complexity, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should not be difficult: part of the code already exist inside IL2.

The black out and red effect are calculated by a G-force meter: the sim just "understands" G-forces. If you black out you must await several seconds (timer) without tight manouvre before you gain control of the plane again (and the black screen fades out).

What we need are another 2 meters who register values on long notice, using the same timer of the Gforce meter:

- One for fatigue (body = effect on controls)
- One for awareness (brain = effect on coordination and screen vision)

Some kinds of manouvre raise these values and, differently from Il2's blackout effect, you should need some "minutes" before all return normal, not seconds.

The gauge for the body fatigue can be the pilot's breath. (like in RO when you end your stamina running).

Instead the gauge for mental confusion can be the nausea itself (blur effect).

JG4_Helofly
06-16-2007, 04:55 PM
Blur effect and pilot's breath is realy a good and more realistic possibility to show how tired your pilot is. A gauge would break a bit the realistic feeling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

avimimus
06-16-2007, 06:57 PM
It should be possible in an FPS to have the character "loose emotional control" etc. and take cover or refuse to leave cover.

Oleg has tried to model fatigue in recent revisions of Il-2. What I would like to see is him use some real studies for night vision in BOB.

Searchlights do have a blinding effect but it
lasts only for a few seconds instead of many minutes.

This needs to be done for there to be any immersion for the night campaign.

AlGroover
06-17-2007, 03:15 AM
After extensive testing, fatigue can be modelled by the ingestion of 200mL red wine per 30 min. Keep a bottle of spirits handy in case of the need to simulate injury.

badatflyski
06-17-2007, 03:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
I have no idea how your ideas might affect code complexity, </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should not be difficult: part of the code already exist inside IL2.

The black out and red effect are calculated by a G-force meter: the sim just "understands" G-forces. If you black out you must await several seconds (timer) without tight manouvre before you gain control of the plane again (and the black screen fades out).

What we need are another 2 meters who register values on long notice, using the same timer of the Gforce meter:

- One for fatigue (body = effect on controls)
- One for awareness (brain = effect on coordination and screen vision)

Some kinds of manouvre raise these values and, differently from Il2's blackout effect, you should need some "minutes" before all return normal, not seconds.

The gauge for the body fatigue can be the pilot's breath. (like in RO when you end your stamina running).

Instead the gauge for mental confusion can be the nausea itself (blur effect). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The blur vision should be enough and rather simple to implement, but the mental confusion seems to be a whole another thing.
Anyway, dreaming of such thing for years now (see my sig!)

WWSensei
06-17-2007, 04:39 AM
One of the rare things WWII Online got right....well, maybe not right, but better than nothing, was modeling pilot fatigue. They seemed to model a fairly simple mechanism that could easily be done by other sims.

JG4_Helofly
06-17-2007, 04:47 AM
Yes, in WWII online you have a fatigue gauge if I remember correctly. If it's possible there it should be possible in future simulations. In the future such a feature will be a must for combat simulation because it's a factore which has a great impact on dogfight IMO. And a last thing; it should be an option like black and red outs. This way people who realy want the agressive 1 hour 6G dogfight would be happy too.
So let's see and hope

MEGILE
06-17-2007, 05:00 AM
Good principal.

In practise... annoying as hell.

badatflyski
06-17-2007, 05:14 AM
MEGILE :WHY annoying?
You have the G-effects already int hte game, as a 190 pilot i could also call them annoying whant zooming from a dive with a high angle and having the black out, why not a blur vision for the heavy G turners?

MEGILE
06-17-2007, 05:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
while for the moviment coordination it should be nice to have a "random" stick movement (something like a random switch between controls... in a nausea effect you try to raise your nose when you, instead, rolling left your plane).
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you take it to this extreme, its going to be annoying.

Not arguing against its implementation however. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Whatever model Oleg chooses, it should be based on real physiological effects.. and not just a tool to "blanace" turn fighters.

JG4_Helofly
06-17-2007, 05:42 AM
Megile, the idea does not come from frustrated fw 190 pilots who want to turn with spitfires. The aim is not to give a handicap to turnfighters, but to make the dogfight more realistic. Now boom and zoom planes have a hard time fighting against pure turner like the spit because you can attack 100 times and the spit will still go away with a 6G turn and that's not ralistic. And don't forget that boom and zoom planes are also affected by fatigue because if you are flying at very high speed, so you can't pull hard on the stick for obvious reasons.

What I find realy attractive beside the fact that dogfights would become more realistic, is that the pure performance of the plane would not longer be the one and only factor. As I said, planes like the 109G6 or the spit V would become much more interesting to fly because you would have a good chance against better planes if you fly with your brain and not with the muscles.

BfHeFwMe
06-17-2007, 10:52 AM
The only place the blur phenomena may fit in with any sort of realism is hypoxia, even than not everyone experiences this effect. I'm with megaphile on this one, human physiology is far to complex and individualized, no two people experience the exact same effects. One simple canned routine = extreme annoyance and boredom.

Include a adult off switch or expect people to toss it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

As for people who fly with their brain verses stick yankers, aren't the already winning? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

TX-EcoDragon
06-17-2007, 12:45 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
The only place the blur phenomena may fit in with any sort of realism is hypoxia, even than not everyone experiences this effect. I'm with megaphile on this one, human physiology is far to complex and individualized, no two people experience the exact same effects. One simple canned routine = extreme annoyance and boredom.

Include a adult off switch or expect people to toss it. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

As for people who fly with their brain verses stick yankers, aren't the already winning? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Sure fatigue is an issue, but the individual variations are so much as to make almost any implementation of something like nausea pretty unrealistic. I am blessed it seems with an iron stomach, and can fly hard aerobatics for much of the day, but many people, even other trained aerobatic pilots feel too beat after 20 minutes to continue. That said, I land between sorties of not much longer than an hour each, and can rehydrate, eat, and other such niceties. The reality of air to air combat though is most people would not encounter such high g loads over an extended time anyway. The time sitting in cruise flight before combat wouldn't factor in much other than dehydration. Our sim dogfights set up as they often are with many people turning and burning for three hours straight would be very tiring to a real pilot, there's no doubt, but that's something of a simism as it is, so I don't know how critical it would be to implement code to deal with that arena.

Additionally. . .from my experience flying with people who got themselves sick, they simply fly with less bravado and often stop moving their head and sacrifice their scan for targets. This could be best simulated by slowing the stick inputs and the magnitude of those inputs. . .or even slowing the movement of the TrackIr/panning. That said, if they looked back and saw a fighter about to open up on them, I'm sure they'd do what they needed to! So how do you implement that without taking away from the overall experience?

I think Oleg has done a reasonable job with respect to positive G effects. Negative G visual effects seem overdone to me though, since there isn't really a real world visual red-out, though that visual caricature of the sensation is probably reasonable, it's annoying to see pink when pushing over at the top of a climb. . .if it were after a push from inverted flight I'd understand it more.

What is certainly missing from the sim are the compensatory mechanisms of the body. These are a noticeable thing in the real world, and result in the lowered positive g tolerance immediately following sustained negative G encounters. In this case, the body responds to the elevated blood pressure in the head, and seeks to lower it by reducing cardiac output and other means such that when the positive G is encountered, the depressed blood pressure works against you. The way these effects happen, a short exposure to the negative G will cause an immediate reduction in cardiac output and heart rate, but then this effect lingers for a while. The compensatory mechanism for positive G exposure takes some time to react to the positive G, and then disappears rather quickly, the result is that in aggressive flying with high G onset rates the plus g compensation is pretty useless, and the negative G compensation is downright dangerous.

What would drive me nuts would be for it to be impossible to do what I do in the real world without major simulated physical ramifications that I should be able to avoid by anti-G straining, g conditioning,being hydrated and fed, and perhaps general physical aptitude for that sort of flying.

JG4_Helofly
06-17-2007, 02:29 PM
I agree that getting sick in flight, having problems with temperature at high alt or pressure problemes would be to complex to simulate. But simply a fatigue system based on high G maneouvres would be a step forward.

Of course some pilots can pull the stick to maximum even after some hard and long manoeuvres and others can not. But we already have the black out/ red out system which is also very individual. If you have high blood pressure you would be able to resist to more G's. A pilot with low blood pressure would not be as resistant.
The problem is that some physiologic restrictions have a great impact on the simulation of air combat like black out and red out we have now. As soon as we have such limiting factors it's hard to model because humans are different. That's why I ask you: should we forget about these human limits because they are not precise enough to allow a 100% correct model or should we ask for such features and take average values, equal for each pilot in game?

Manu-6S
06-17-2007, 04:21 PM
I think that these effects need to make another step in direction of realism.

Obviously they should be in a option in the difficult panel... who find them boring can disable them... instead who want dogs similar to RL will set them on (do you never wonder why in guncamera the targets don't evade? sometimes they were been ambushed, sometimes not...)

KrasniyYastreb
06-17-2007, 08:38 PM
I'm with EcoDragon on this one. It's hard to objectively model these things. Would the effects of adrenaline be modelled, increasing the strength of the virtual pilot? What about the perceived "slowing down" of time in a crisis/critical situation? Human beings are too complex to mocel in such detail.



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I think that these effects need to make another step in direction of realism.

Obviously they should be in a option in the difficult panel... who find them boring can disable them... instead who want dogs similar to RL will set them on (do you never wonder why in guncamera the targets don't evade? sometimes they were been ambushed, sometimes not...) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

tagTaken2
06-17-2007, 11:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
I'm with EcoDragon on this one. It's hard to objectively model these things. Would the effects of adrenaline be modelled, increasing the strength of the virtual pilot? What about the perceived "slowing down" of time in a crisis/critical situation? Human beings are too complex to mocel in such detail.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. I can't imagine the degree of whine ("Oleg! Humans are porked!") that would come out of "fatigue" modelling.

Daiichidoku
06-17-2007, 11:53 PM
slightly OT, but

it would be nice if blackouts were truly such

as it is, only vision and jstick are affected; one may effect any other function, despite being semi to full unconscious http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

ImMoreBetter
06-18-2007, 12:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
I'm with EcoDragon on this one. It's hard to objectively model these things. Would the effects of adrenaline be modelled, increasing the strength of the virtual pilot? What about the perceived "slowing down" of time in a crisis/critical situation? Human beings are too complex to mocel in such detail. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can agree with the adrenaline-strength issue. If you use the right data to make the effect(assumeing you could find accurate data), that should be somewhat hammered out.

Also, it's possible to have a "slow down" while playing videogames. I've done it many times in Halo or Rainbow 6.
Last time I got into a fight with a 109 I was near doing so. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
06-18-2007, 01:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
I'm with EcoDragon on this one. It's hard to objectively model these things. Would the effects of adrenaline be modelled, increasing the strength of the virtual pilot? What about the perceived "slowing down" of time in a crisis/critical situation? Human beings are too complex to mocel in such detail.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You can feel adrenaline and "slowing down" anytime in Il2: it's depend on HOW you are playing... if you have a career in a online campaign and you find yourself in trouble you'll just remember that moment.

I remember any single time I died in AW (not many), and during an attack to a formation of 5 Mosquito in Spitvs109 I truly had shudders at my arms for the fear to die in that moment...

About the complexity of human body... you guys are exagerating... it's still a game... might Oleg model blood pressure to know if the pilot must have an heart attack?? Or maybe dysentery in Guadacanal? Come on, you are joking.

That we mean here is to model MAIN conditions in that a ww2 pilot con be: fear don't need to be modelled... it's well simulated by ourself.

LEXX_Luthor
06-18-2007, 02:35 AM
Finally, a wee bit of sense calling out what this is all about -- Stamina Guage, Health Bars, next -- Power Ups? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JG4_Helofly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I agree that getting sick in flight, having problems with temperature at high alt or pressure problemes would be to complex to simulate. But simply a fatigue system based on high G maneouvres would be a step forward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
If we want Aviation Medicine modelled, you model ALL of Aviation Medicine, not just the Turn~n~Boyd aspect. The 190 Jocks(tm)(http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) want, or claim to want, ALL flight model aspects simulated (except elevator trim http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif ), but the only Aviation Medicine effects they want modelled is "gee" effects to "slow down" the Turn~n~Boyd tactics. The original quote had it right from the start...

Ratsack:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I suspect there are a whole <span class="ev_code_yellow">lot of things</span> that aren't modeled - and perhaps can't be modeled - that make our sim experience vastly different to the real thing.

Real fear is one.

Real gravity is another.

The exhaustion of living at low pressure (high alt), on oxygen, for hours.

The pain of a negative G red out.

The nausea involved in most violent combat moves.

etc...

I suspect there are a <span class="ev_code_yellow">lot of things</span> that make it all too easy in the sim. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The etc... part is right on.

The problem with failed diving attacks against Online opponents that become aware they are under attack or fly with external view enabled is easily fixed by (1) don't fail, and (2) if fail, extending permenently to find another target, which is what most such attacks tried to do in real life.

LEXX_Luthor
06-18-2007, 02:55 AM
I'd prefer to see more energy bleed from hard turns, including AI aircraft -- if that preference is correct -- and so keep Turn~n~Boyd tacticians slow and on the defensive. Attempts to model just one (1) aspect of Aviation Medicine in sims that can't get flight models "right" would be, as has been pointed out, totally subjective -- although maybe not if a real study of Aviation Medicine is performed and simulated. I dunno.

Unless the AI pilots are also programmed for Aviation Medicine features, Turn~n~Boyd "fatigue" is an Online competition sport or aerobatic gameplay feature only. Turn~n~Boyd "gee" fatigure for the Player Plane alone offers the customer nothing to do with modelling immersive air warfare.

Manu-6S
06-18-2007, 03:47 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem with failed diving attacks against Online opponents that become aware they are under attack or fly with external view enabled is easily fixed by (1) don't fail, and (2) if fail, extending permenently to find another target, which is what most such attacks tried to do in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree.

A good tnb plane (not naming which) that evades from 2 coordinated bnzers will be tired in few minutes... not 20 minutes because all that turning finished in a lose of altitude (plane crashes on the ground)...

I would like to see no pressurized planes at 10000m, no open cockpit planes at 7000m ect, oxygen problems...

JG4_Helofly
06-18-2007, 04:23 AM
I have the impression that some people are affraid of such a fatigue system because this would limit their extrem manoeuvres in t&b planes. As I said: also b&z planes are affected because little manoeuvres at high speed make a lot of G.

And if we take the argument of the too complex human body we should ask Oleg for taking out the black out effect because it's not accurate and too individual. But imagine what would happen on df server without black out limitation: ufo fighting. Or take out the manoeuvering restriction for pilots who have been hit by a bullet because it's not accurate. Nothing is perfect in a simulation.

Not taking the human limitations into account is not possible for a simulation IMO. It has a huge impact on game play.

A simple fatigue system for G force would not be harder to model than the black out effect we have now in game. And rl pilots could easily help creating such a thing with their experience.

Without such important factors, air combat simulation will never be or look realistic.

Henkie327
06-18-2007, 05:28 AM
Where do you guys get the idea that evading BnZ-ers involves pulling hi G's?

It doesn't need pulling hi G's, just needs good SA, good timing, speed management, and a short jink, never prolonged hi G's.

However modelling pilot fatigue in a good way could be ok. Could affect a crazy rolling 190's also.

ImpStarDuece
06-18-2007, 07:59 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem with failed diving attacks against Online opponents that become aware they are under attack or fly with external view enabled is easily fixed by (1) don't fail, and (2) if fail, extending permenently to find another target, which is what most such attacks tried to do in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree.

A good tnb plane (not naming which) that evades from 2 coordinated bnzers will be tired in few minutes... not 20 minutes because all that turning finished in a lose of altitude (plane crashes on the ground)...

I would like to see no pressurized planes at 10000m, no open cockpit planes at 7000m ect, oxygen problems... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like the Mossie bomber pilot that evaded two Me-262s for 45 minutes at 27,000 feet.

Blutarski2004
06-18-2007, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
I would like to see no pressurized planes at 10000m, no open cockpit planes at 7000m ect, oxygen problems... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Another bullseye!

RegRag1977
06-18-2007, 04:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I have the impression that some people are affraid of such a fatigue system because this would limit their extrem manoeuvres in t&b planes. As I said: also b&z planes are affected because little manoeuvres at high speed make a lot of G.

And if we take the argument of the too complex human body we should ask Oleg for taking out the black out effect because it's not accurate and too individual. But imagine what would happen on df server without black out limitation: ufo fighting. Or take out the manoeuvering restriction for pilots who have been hit by a bullet because it's not accurate. Nothing is perfect in a simulation.

Not taking the human limitations into account is not possible for a simulation IMO. It has a huge impact on game play.

A simple fatigue system for G force would not be harder to model than the black out effect we have now in game. And rl pilots could easily help creating such a thing with their experience.

Without such important factors, air combat simulation will never be or look realistic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I totally agree! Nothing more to say mate...

WWSensei
06-18-2007, 05:38 PM
The lack of pilot fatigue (and wind for that matter) is as huge a realism flaw in the game if Oleg had forgotten to model torque, drag and gravity for that matter. It is a HUGE factor in determining combat, especially in the early days before more elaborate G suits. Read about how pilots practiced 4G recovery techniques in dives because while they were capable of recovering in 6 to 8 Gs the additional strain usually took them out of the fight.

Does it have to be every effect? Absolutely not, but our ability to pull so many continuous Gs for indefinite periods of times is just, plain, wrong.

To give just an inkling take a 15lb (7kilo) dumbell. For every 5 seconds of a 20 degree banked turn do 15 curls. For a 40 degree banked turn use 30 lbs (14 kilo) and do 20 curls. You'll begin to get the idea of the kind of forces you are talking about yanking the stick around.

Think back to when Eric Brown suggested much toned down joystick settings. It was mainly because the things were not the twitchy things we have in this game. There was weight and strain behind that stick.

LEXX_Luthor
06-18-2007, 06:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The problem with failed diving attacks against Online opponents that become aware they are under attack or fly with external view enabled is easily fixed by (1) don't fail, and (2) if fail, extending permenently to find another target, which is what most such attacks tried to do in real life. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Disagree.

A good tnb plane (not naming which) that evades from 2 coordinated bnzers will be tired in few minutes... not 20 minutes because all that turning finished in a lose of altitude (plane crashes on the ground)... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(1) Some WW2 pilots indeed evaded repeat coordinated bouncing attacks for far longer than a "few minutes," even for longer than 20 minutes. But, they were *real* good pilots, something we may not want to allow our Online Dogfight opponent to simulate.


(2) Plane does not "crash into the ground," it runs out of available energy near ground level and gets shot down -- the end result is the same though!

-- even that is sometimes false, as demonstrated by the WW2 pilots who proved (1) above and did not descend to ground level.


(3) Repeated diving attacks against a lone turning opponent was never a major feature of WW2 air combat, but is strictly a major -- perhaps the major -- feature of today's post-modern Online Dogfight gameplay.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to see no pressurized planes at 10000m, no open cockpit planes at 7000m ect, oxygen problems... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aussom! Then we spend equal time focusing on them all, as these other features of Aviation Medicine were experienced for longer periods of time than turning gees. The lower intensity of these other features of Aviation Medicine are experienced over a far greater time span, so are as important as "gee" fatigue.

LEXX_Luthor
06-18-2007, 07:09 PM
Sensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does it have to be every effect? Absolutely not, but our ability to pull so many continuous Gs for indefinite periods of times is just, plain, wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its like flight modeling effects -- if we have one effect, we must have them all, or a good number of them as possible. I think post-modern superjetfighters shield the pilot from experiencing many of the harsh environmental conditions that were at one time as dangerous in combat, when experienced over a long time, as pulling "gees" over a short time.

Indeed, I'm thinking (http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif) the only environmental condition that post-modern superjet designers cannot really shield the pilot from is gee force, although gee suits help some. To eliminate this final enviro effect on pilots is the stuff of science fiction. I've always wondered how those Sci-Fi TV episodes offer artificial gravity but the starship bridge crew accelerate from their seats to the floor in an exciting to watch tumble when their ship is hit. Perhaps we may rationalize that if we think the starship's AG system isn't fast enough to compensate for the high impulse impact of a Newbietron Torpedo for example.

Manu-6S
06-19-2007, 01:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:

(1) Some WW2 pilots indeed evaded repeat coordinated bouncing attacks for far longer than a "few minutes," even for longer than 20 minutes. But, they were *real* good pilots, something we may not want to allow our Online Dogfight opponent to simulate.


(2) Plane does not "crash into the ground," it runs out of available energy near ground level and gets shot down -- the end result is the same though!

-- even that is sometimes false, as demonstrated by the WW2 pilots who proved (1) above and did not descend to ground level.


(3) Repeated diving attacks against a lone turning opponent was never a major feature of WW2 air combat, but is strictly a major -- perhaps the major -- feature of today's post-modern Online Dogfight gameplay.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to see no pressurized planes at 10000m, no open cockpit planes at 7000m ect, oxygen problems... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Aussom! Then we spend equal time focusing on them all, as these other features of Aviation Medicine were experienced for longer periods of time than turning gees. The lower intensity of these other features of Aviation Medicine are experienced over a far greater time span, so are as important as "gee" fatigue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1) Maybe they were using something like clouds and not turning and turning?

About Mosquito evading Me262, Imo, it's a diffenent thing... mosquito could turn tigher than me262, but surely not tight as single seat planes = (not many G)

2) I thought it was obvious that the crash depended from energy lack... One of the first time I played this game I could stand inside a Spit against 5 enemies (2 FW and 3 BF) and they gat me only because I couldn't regain energy... for 10 minute I keep turning and turning until I found the earth.

3) Yes, maybe because their targets were different from getting kills...

LEXX_Luthor
06-19-2007, 03:11 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Manus:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
1) Maybe they were using something like clouds and not turning and turning? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not according to the pilots involved on *either* side of these types of engagements. Don't insult these pilots -- read some history, young grasshopper/hopperette. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">About Mosquito evading Me262, Imo, it's a diffenent thing... mosquito could turn tigher than me262, but surely not tight as single seat planes = (not many G) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Same thing, but we may assume at faster speeds than the Japanese accounts of evading, so lots of gees at high speeds even at lower turn rates and turn radii. It takes a long time for BnZ planes to setup another attack, unless they are many and are coordinated -- that was Saburo's 30 minute evading experience against 16 Hellcats, but the Ussian pilots were apparently Newbies. So, pulling gees is not always constant although Saburo came close to doing that. This is not as simple as post-modern Online dogfight shooter gamers want to believe here. If you wish to talk Aviation Medicine, its a cool topic. Lets Talk.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">3) Yes, maybe because their targets were different from getting kills... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Targets were getting kills. The lone defensive turning fighter was not normally the prime target however.

lowfighter
06-19-2007, 04:41 AM
There's a kind of stick unresponsiveness when the pilot get wounded sometimes, you pull the stick but the plane reacts very slowly and I think this adds to immersion. There's a similar thing happening during blackouts or when coming out of blackouts, that's great too.
I would also like very much to have a kind of pilot fatigue implemented.
I see Lexx and others put a couple of arguments against modeling fatigue:
-The fact that that there are too many effects on the human body, so either you have more of them or none.
To me, as well as to others above, it's better to have SOME of them than NONE. Fatigue is pretty basic and I believe too it might change very much the play towards more realistic flying. I'm no RL pilot but if I recall all the RL footage, even movies http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, the manner of flying seen there is considerably milder than anything I do in the game (and I have no doubt that I'm a very mild virtual pilot in comparison with many other). Yes I would like to get shot down because of pilot fatigue. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif


- They are too complicated or that they vary in RL too much for diferent pilots

Here I'd love to have simplifed effects (they can be only simple models anyway, otherwise Oleg could get the Nobel prise for medicine http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif)than NONE. Also I'd be quite happy with a sort of average model, all of us to get tired in the same proportion, or a couple of different models to be turned on/off depending on mission or online server. I can even think of a very weak fatigue model which would correspond to a very fit pilot. Even that would be much better than than no fatigue at all.

LEXX_Luthor
06-19-2007, 04:58 AM
lowfighter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also I'd be quite happy with a sort of average model, all of us to get tired in the same proportion, or a couple of different models to be turned on/off depending on mission or online server. I can even think of a very weak fatigue model which would correspond to a very fit pilot. Even that would be much better than than no fatigue at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's a start toward a webboard discussion of the issues involved.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I see Lexx and others put a couple of arguments against modeling fatigue: </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nobody in this thread is "against" gee fatigue. Shucks, I'm all for modelling Aviation Medicine in combat flight sims. Predictably, that's not what this thread turned into discussion about, although the starting quote from Ratsack is all about Aviaton Medicine. Ratsack was ignored, but hey, its a PC dogfight game webboard. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-The fact that that there are too many effects on the human body, so either you have more of them or none.
To me, as well as to others above, it's better to have SOME of them than NONE. Fatigue is pretty basic and I believe too it might change very much the play towards more realistic flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Realism(tm) for only one (1) tiny aspect of flying fatigue will not result in more realistic "flying."


How about simplified flight models? Simplified damage models? If physical effects on pilots are so important to combat between opposing aircraft, that's right up there with FM and DM in importance. See the point here? Until Aviation Medicine, among other things, is modelled in The Sims, this sim, or any other sim, is only a comparative flight model simulator -- ideal for Online flight model competition gameplay -- and no air combat simulator at all. So we find that, until the time The Sims can model various features of Aviation Medicine as widely as various features of FMs and DMs, modelling no "gee" fatigue is more realistic than modelling "gee" fatigue alone.

lowfighter
06-19-2007, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
lowfighter
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-The fact that that there are too many effects on the human body, so either you have more of them or none.
To me, as well as to others above, it's better to have SOME of them than NONE. Fatigue is pretty basic and I believe too it might change very much the play towards more realistic flying. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Realism(tm) for only one (1) tiny aspect of flying fatigue will not result in more realistic "flying."



How about simplified flight models? Simplified damage models? If physical effects on pilots are so important to combat between opposing aircraft, that's right up there with FM and DM in importance. See the point here? Until Aviation Medicine, among other things, is modelled in The Sims, this sim, or any other sim, is only a comparative flight model simulator -- ideal for Online flight model competition gameplay -- and no air combat simulator at all. So we find that, until the time The Sims can model various features of Aviation Medicine as widely as various features of FMs and DMs, modelling no "gee" fatigue is more realistic than modelling "gee" fatigue alone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'd go with a progressive approach, start modeling pilot fatigue, or whatever other physiologic effect which is important. Then model other effects if possible. It's about programming after all, building modules... from simple to complex.

About the realism (tm)and pilot fatigue sentence, I don't understand you at all. ??
Pilot fatigue would limit prolonged earthquake flying, and I think this is not a tiny aspect at all, I think it's a HUGE factor. There's many times during a fight when I feel I cheat when doing prolonged violent flying, surely some others think the same.

JG4_Helofly
06-19-2007, 07:13 AM
100% agree with lowfighter.

A progressive approach would be the best way to do it imo and I think that it's much more realistic to model fatigue only at first than no fatigue at all. If I take LEXXXs exemple, what would be better, an imperfect flight model as we have now with lot of important things which are not modeled or no FM at all? I don't see why a "fatigue only" system would be more unrealistic than "no fatigue".

If all factors of human body would be taken into account at the same time it would be very hard to adjust it. If it's introduced progressively, it's easier to adjust only one thing to have it right and then move on to the next thing.

WWSensei
06-19-2007, 07:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Sensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does it have to be every effect? Absolutely not, but our ability to pull so many continuous Gs for indefinite periods of times is just, plain, wrong. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Its like flight modeling effects -- if we have one effect, we must have them all, or a good number of them as possible. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Modeling some sort of limiting factor of fatique--even simplistic linear exhaustion--would be far more accurate than nothing. This is not a case where a little is as good as nothing. Nothing is, well, nothing. even a simple modeling of fatigue would double the reality of the sim.

It is a huge, gaping, hole in this sim--almost to the point of making it only slightly better than console-arcade air quake game. It affects performance, tactics and nearly every single aspect of air combat.

How many endless debates and arguments have we seen over damage models, flight models or weapons? I'm trying to establish a sense of scale here on just how important this would be. I don't often involve myself in those debates for a simple reason. They are irrelevant compared to the missing feature of pilot fatigue.

A pilot's action/inaction or ability to perform an action is MORE important than any DM, FM or weapon effect combined--yet it isn't even addressed in this sim. 99% of ACM is determined by the pilot's actions. Fatigue is one of the most important parameters to those actions yet no one really debates it, but gods forbid some modeller get a bolt 2 pixels out of place and the "True Experts" and EC Chart Monkeys start wailing.

It's why I laugh when I see people comparing their skills to the real life counterparts with claims of "in the virtual skies most people are aces compared to the real thing". Hardly. In fact, I believe just the opposite. Been flying online in sims since the old free Flying Circus and in my experience 95% of the virtual pilots are no more than cannon fodder. The missing factors in most sims actually create pilots with more bad habits than good ones.

For example, if you use TrackIR and have a deadzone, any deadzone, you have developed a bad habit from previous sim experiences of a locked down forward view and your markmanship in real life would render you fairly useless in a real fight. You've developed a habit that would most likely result in you dying within your first 5 sorties.

IL-2 is arguably one of the "most accurate" sims on the market, yet the two key factors that determine flight and fighting--namely wind and pilot--aren't modelled in the game.

I flew an aircraft specifically designed to reduce the effects of G forces, including wearing a sophisticated G-suit not available to WW2 pilots. I was in top physical shape and yet more than half a dozen 4G-6G in a 5 minute period left me exhausted. I don't think people really understand how much of a strain G forces are on the body. People in this game pull more high-G maneuvers in 20 seconds than most modern day fighter pilots would pull in their advanced aircraft in an hour--and still be exhausted by it despite all the advanced anti-G technology they possess.

Load up a barbell with weight matching your own body weight. Repeatedly bench press it for say 15 seconds. Rest 20 seconds, then do it again. How many of those can you do before the arms wear out? That would be roughly equivalent to experiencing 3G-4G maneuvers.

LEXX_Luthor
06-19-2007, 07:24 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lowfighter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'd go with a progressive approach, start modeling pilot fatigue, or whatever other physiologic effect which is important. Then model other effects if possible. It's about programming after all, building modules... from simple to complex. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilot fatigue has many causes as Ratsack alone was willing to discuss here. I'm sure you meant to say -- start modelling "gee" induced pilot fatigue, before any other effects, but slipped up.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Pilot fatigue would limit prolonged earthquake flying, and I think this is not a tiny aspect at all, I think it's a HUGE factor. There's many times during a fight when I feel I cheat when doing prolonged violent flying, surely some others think the same. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilot fatigue would allow pilots to lose alertness and lose some ability to spot other planes approaching or bouncing them. If we fly P-51Doras over the Berlin map, we suffer fatigue but Bf-109 players do not -- unless the Bf player ReArmed and ReFueled very quickly as they did during WW2 B-17 raaiids - that's another discussion but shows us here that modelling Aviation Medicine is not as simple as we pump ourselves up into believing.

If we don't like flying P-38s while suffering pilot fatigue that simulates long hours in the cockpit under harsh environment conditions, we have the option of flying earthquake servers that allow P-38 players to fly as a freshly taken off alert pilot without any modelling of long hours in the cockpit. But then if we ask other players to fly while suffering other fatigue effects, we are cheating.

All the effects must be modelled, or we cheat. There's many times during a fight when I feel I cheat when spotting an approaching hostile bounce, or a target, when having spawned only minutes earlier, but the scenario models a mission that required many hours of cockpit time at high altitude or bad weather before any combat.

lowfighter
06-19-2007, 09:17 PM
Yes it's about G-forces we're talking about, that's the basic one.
Quite right to say the fatigue due to long flights is hard to implement or even unacceptable from gaming point of view.
Again, I find it strange that you think it's better either all effects modeled or none, but you reject the middle situation. To me:
No effects: cheat
Some effects: less cheat
All effects: no cheat
But I see now your point that in principle modeling CERTAIN effects can result in more cheat than no moddeling at all (depending on mission circumstances etc). However I don't see such a problem moddeling the G-fatigue...could be good to figure out if there are some problems modeling G-forces fatigue, besides the objection that different humans have in RL different endurance under G-strain. But see Sensei posts above, to him, having the RL experience of high-G as a military pilot, he doesn't care about such details as human variation because the effect is ANYWAY so big no matter how fit a pilot is. Take the toughest real pilot and be sure he'll not do in RL the things we do in game! Model the toughest pilot fatigue.
Hm, not sure I make myself clear...

lowfighter
06-19-2007, 09:35 PM
Quite interesting that this thread have just a few people involved in discussion. But I can bet that if implemented say in BOB, many people which are silent now for various reasons would be quite happy having it.

Manu-6S
06-20-2007, 01:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Not according to the pilots involved. Don't insult these pilots, read some history, young grasshopper/hopperette.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I was guessing about it since I didn't read that account (but remember, that IS an account)

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Same thing, but we may assume at faster speeds than the Japanese accounts of evading, so lots of gees at high speeds even at lower turn rates and turn radii. It takes a long time for BnZ planes to setup another attack, unless they are many and are coordinated -- that was Saburo's 30 minute evading experience against 16 Hellcats, but the Ussian pilots were apparently Newbies. So, pulling gees is not always constant although Saburo came close to doing that. This is not as simple as post-modern Online dogfight shooter gamers want to believe here. If you wish to talk Aviation Medicine, its a cool topic. Lets Talk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You should remember that japanese pilots were probably the better trained on physical aspect in all the ww2. I read that Sakai was exhausted at the and of the fight... but he wasn't alone in that fight.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
If we don't like flying P-38s while suffering pilot fatigue that simulates long hours in the cockpit under harsh environment conditions, we have the option of flying earthquake servers that allow P-38 players to fly as a freshly taken off alert pilot without any modelling of long hours in the cockpit. But then if we ask other players to fly while suffering other fatigue effects, we are cheating.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So the fact that P-38s are just at 10000m with tanks filled with 25% and totally fresh pilot is not cheating?

Do you want to simulate the fatigue of a 4 hours flight? It only need a shorter "range" for fatigue before the "exhausted" condition (if ideally the range on a fresh pilot go from 1 to 100, the P-38-P.51 pilot will have a 1-50 range EDIT: for coop only where you set the flight duration BEFORE the mission's start).

Sensei:

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

ImpStarDuece
06-20-2007, 03:27 AM
What if your simulating the third or four scramble for a Spitfire/Hurricane pilot in 1940, a La/Yak pilot in 1943 or for a 190/109 pilot in 1944?

Should they be modelled more or less fatigued than the pilot in a big, roomy P-47 or Typhoon cockpit that is on his second hour of a four hour fighter sweep across the Low Countries and has to only fly two or three missions a week?

Afterall, they may have done significantly more flying and heavy manouvering during the day already, but, on this particular flight, they may of only been in the cockpit for half an hour.

Should we also model equipment shortages, like Spitfire pilots only operating with .303 Brownings over Malta while their Hispano ammo problems got sorted, or some MC 202s operating without functioning nose guns.

Perhaps we should model the late war deteoriation of German airframes, or the extra proclivity for backfires with 150 octane?

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 06:29 AM
It's realy interesting that only a few people are discussing here about that major problem. Maybe most people are not interested? Or don't want it because they fear a disadvantage when flying extrem manoeuvres they are used to. Maybe we should make a poll to see if people are more pro or contra.

I can only say that such a feature would be simple to implant (we have already black and red outs) and would be the same for everyone. As some people said, it's not possible to do it 100% right because it's a human factor which is variable. It should be modeled with average values which can be found in modern flight medecine or RL pilots could help with their experience. So not a big thing. I belive that it would be more accurate than the fm which is, as you know, only modeled to a few % of RL. As I said before: nothing is perfect in a sim, but we must simulate important factors even if it's not perfect. FM is far from 100% correct, but we have it in the game. If you want it perfect, go out and fly in RL.

Blutarski2004
06-20-2007, 07:04 AM
This thread is possibly the most valuable one to appear on this forum in the past two years.

GBrutus
06-20-2007, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Blutarski2004:
This thread is possibly the most valuable one to appear on this forum in the past two years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agree 100%. I would love to see proper pilot fatigue modeled in BoB. Very interesting thread indeed and I hope it gets Oleg's attention. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

lowfighter
06-20-2007, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ImpStarDuece:
What if your simulating the third or four scramble for a Spitfire/Hurricane pilot in 1940, a La/Yak pilot in 1943 or for a 190/109 pilot in 1944?

Should they be modelled more or less fatigued than the pilot in a big, roomy P-47 or Typhoon cockpit that is on his second hour of a four hour fighter sweep across the Low Countries and has to only fly two or three missions a week?

Afterall, they may have done significantly more flying and heavy manouvering during the day already, but, on this particular flight, they may of only been in the cockpit for half an hour.

Should we also model equipment shortages, like Spitfire pilots only operating with .303 Brownings over Malta while their Hispano ammo problems got sorted, or some MC 202s operating without functioning nose guns.

Perhaps we should model the late war deteoriation of German airframes, or the extra proclivity for backfires with 150 octane? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Imp, suppose we can choose from the following:

1)game can model very complex and circumstance-dependent pilot fatigue
2)game can model a very simple fatigue model with all pilots equally fresh and equally fit at the beginning of the mission and a simple model of fatigue applied during mission
3) No pilot fatigue at all.
What would you choose?
No 1) might be tough perhaps to implement but what would you chose if you were given the 2) and 3) options only?
Consider also that if Oleg and friends will allow it, it will be designed such that one can turn it off/on.
Consider also that the objections you (and similarly Lexx) raised might be in fact a goldmine of immersion. Suppose Oleg decides to model it. Suppose he comes with a fatigue which depends on a parameter which describes the initial state. Imagine this parameter being varied during an offline campaign. Imagine this parameter being "higher" for Luftwaffe during late war on a dogfight map and you're flying for the Luftwaffe! People complaining about unfair gaming and bias? So what, OTHER people would appreciate to have a variable fatigue flying experience modelled, and even enjoy fighting with higher initialfatigue agains opponents with lower initial fatigue.
It's happening right now online and offline, people enjoying flying with different settings.

arjisme
06-20-2007, 09:07 AM
I think adding optional pilot fatigue due to G-forces is the way to go. After that, we reassess and make further adjustments.

As to pilot fatigue due to length of missions, the best way to handle that is to create realistic missions. You want a more realistic simulation? Model take off from England and the long flight to Germany. You, sitting at your PC, will get tired and careless and become fatigued, w/o needing to add game code to simulate that.

OK, it's more complex than that, I know. So I suggest keeping it relatively simple and add the G-force fatigue for now. It's imperfect, just like our FMs and DMs are now, but it is an incremental step forward.

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 09:48 AM
I think we need a poll and a direct line to Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Manu-6S
06-20-2007, 10:17 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ar****e:
Model take off from England and the long flight to Germany. You, sitting at your PC, will get tired and careless and become fatigued, w/o needing to add game code to simulate that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

As I said before there are aspects what don't need to be modelled since WE can FEEL them play the game.

All depends from our way to play (fun or historic simulation): fear can't be modelled in the game, but I can feel FEAR if I care about my virtual life.

Do you want brain fatigue? play 2 hours without dying... you'll be very tired (mentally).

Play Dogs or Coops or VOWs, have care about your K/D ratio stat (the last time in Spitvs109 I was 102/15 with a 2/3 in the last day http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, and every time I was in danger I really feel FEAR)...

lowfighter
06-20-2007, 10:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
I think we need a poll and a direct line to Oleg http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A poll would be nice, but I doubt it would have many people voting (for, against or "I don't care").
But even the silence can tell things, to us and to developers.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 10:50 AM
WWSensei, I didn't see you earlier.

-- A pilot's action/inaction or ability to perform an action is MORE important than any DM, FM or weapon effect combined--yet it isn't even addressed in this sim.

The core actions in air combat are setting up the kill, stalking the enemy, planning the attack, and equally important, evading the enemy if needed and spotting a hostile attack and responding to it, all of which are helped by an alert and ready pilot. This is where "dogfight" gee fatigue may be overshadowed in importance by other causes of pilot fatigue. However, I can see the post-modern F-16 fighter pilot focuses on "gee" forces, as the pilot is comfortably cushioned from other harsh environmental effects through engineering, unlike the aircraft in WW2 and earlier.

--------


lowfigher:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Yes it's about G-forces we're talking about, that's the basic one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
As we see now, its not the "basic" one, its only one of many. It is, however, the only feature of aviation medicine that relates to hardcore dogfight manuevering, so it gets singled out for attention on the dogfight gaming webboards.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">think adding optional pilot fatigue due to G-forces is the way to go. After that, we reassess and make further adjustments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You will be happy with flight models offering roll, but no engine power? After that, we reassess and make further adjustments. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The powerplant can always be modelled later. Are we saying these pilot effects are more difficult to create than flight models? I suggest they are not.


...but then, the hostile vocal minority of Online players at this webboard were happy with disabled elevator trim in FB 1.0 flight models, and Oleg went along with it for most of the life of his sim...

arjisme
06-20-2007, 11:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
You are trying to claim these pilot effects are more difficult to create than flight models. You will be happy with flight models offering roll, but no engine power? The powerplant can always be modelled later. After that, we reassess and make further adjustments. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, I do not assert the difficulty of creating all aspects of pilot fatigue. I suspect some aspects are harder than others to model though. If that is true, then I think we should resist the all or nothing approach you seem to favor. Let's get what is doable, admit it is less than perfect, and work further for the rest.

From this you can see that I would find it acceptable to model G-force fatigue even though we did not model other pilot fatigue causes. This says nothing about whether I would be happy with modeling roll but not the powerplant.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 11:19 AM
arjsime:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Actually, I do not assert the difficulty of creating all aspects of pilot fatigue. I suspect some aspects are harder than others to model though. If that is true, then I think we should resist the all or nothing approach you seem to favor. Let's get what is doable, admit it is less than perfect, and work further for the rest.

From this you can see that I would find it acceptable to model G-force fatigue even though we did not model other pilot fatigue causes. This says nothing about whether I would be happy with modeling roll but not the powerplant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Why are we claiming "gee" force effects are easier to model than the others? Where did this idea come from? It may be the other way around. Think about it.


Not trying to be harsh, but I am thinking beyond the standard Online shooter arcade-ish "dogfight" gaming experience. If we wish to create an XboX shooter flying game, then "gee" forces are the only thing needed for that little bit of extra Pizazz. We don't even need a decent flight model for such an XboX or PlayStation game. Indeed, we only need parts of the flight model -- the "easy" parts.


...but then, the hostile and vocal Old Timer minority of Online players at this webboard were happy with WW2 aircraft modeled with disabled trim controls in Forgotten Battle and Pacific Fighters, and Oleg Maddox went along with this for most of the life of his sim...

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 11:37 AM
LEXXX, we have only the easy parts of the flight model. Remember? Oleg said that only about 10% of all factors which must be taken into account to have it 100% correct are possible to model. If you look at from this point of view we have an arcade game. We don't even have a simple fatigue model.

If I understand you correctly, you think that only the G force fatigue model would be worse than no model at all and would make the game arcadish right?

If we look at the whole picture of fatigue, what would be the most important factor? I would say G force because it would have a great effect on the simulation of a dogfight. Which fatigue aspect has the same importance and the same impact on game play as the effect of G force? I don't know. You said, fatigue from long flight time, ok but is it so important? If a pilot fly an escort mission he will never go into hard manoeuvres, so it's like driving a car for an hour and than start to race. It's maybe better because the pilot would aready be warmed up.

IMO the most important fatigue aspect is fatigue from G force. It has a huge impact on game play and is relatively simple to implant in the game. So we should start with that.

WWSensei
06-20-2007, 11:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
WWSensei, I didn't see you earlier.
...

This is where "dogfight" gee fatigue may be overshadowed in importance by other causes of pilot fatigue. However, I can see the post-modern F-16 fighter pilot focuses on "gee" forces, as the pilot is comfortably cushioned from other harsh environmental effects through engineering, unlike the aircraft in WW2 and earlier. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't make assumptions. You think the Viper is the only aircraft I've ever flown? I do have time--several hundred hours all total--in a few different WW2 era airframes including a Mustang, T-6, Yak-18 and hell, even a B-25.

I'm not saying G's are the only key factor, but your strawman arguement of that it must be all or nothing is exactly that--a strawman. It would be nice to have other factors, but even a staightforward aspect like G force strain--something that is actually well documented in its effects and is publicly available--as well as the game already calculates G forces would SIGNIFICANTLY increase the reality of the game--not make more arcade. I'm not opposed to more being added but saying adding just one makes the game MORE arcade is a ludicrous statement.

In addition, the game models joystick displacement as a factor of strength applied and not on flight surface deflection--therefore you already have the basics for a simple fatigue model.

Modeling just one factor would not turn this in an arcade XBox shooter. The lack of modeling ANYTHING in this area already makes it so and you don't need the whole package to have a significant impact. That's just arguing in the hyperbole.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 11:45 AM
WWSensai, you see what I'm talking about in the poast by ManuS...

ManuS:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As I said before there are aspects what don't need to be modelled since WE can FEEL them play the game.

All depends from our way to play (fun or historic simulation): fear can't be modelled in the game, but I can feel FEAR if I care about my virtual life.

Do you want brain fatigue? play 2 hours without dying... you'll be very tired (mentally). </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

(1) Far below freezing temperature at altitudes.

(2) Two hours of constant gee forces in low altitude turbulent air, especailly at higher speeds.

(3) Lack of oxygen if not used, or burning throat and mask gripping face.

(4) Two hours of high decibal sounds dulling the brain.

(5) Blinding high altitude sunlight causing UV blindness (unless player simulates pilot wearing dark glasses)

(6) To quote Ratsack ... "etc..."



We, the PC simmers in this thread, possibly(?) exlcuding Sensai, could not play this for 10 minutes before tripping over our own mouse cables to...

Quit Game

Yes Quit Game And Please Hurry Up

YES Confirm http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Quit Game Just Get Me Back To Safety And Comfort Of Microsoft Windows Desktop

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

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 11:58 AM
Sensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm not saying G's are the only key factor... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Thank You!


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Modeling just one factor would not turn this in an arcade XBox shooter. The lack of modeling ANYTHING in this area already makes it so and you don't need the whole package to have a significant impact. That's just arguing in the hyperbole. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
We need more than "gee" force effects to simulate pilot fatigue that can effect air combat. Lets cover this again...

The core actions in air combat are setting up the kill, stalking the enemy, planning the attack, and equally important, evading the enemy if needed and spotting a hostile attack and responding to it, all of which are helped by an alert and ready pilot. This is where "dogfight" gee fatigue may be overshadowed in importance by other causes of pilot fatigue. However, I can see the post-modern F-16 fighter pilot focuses on "gee" forces, as the pilot is comfortably cushioned from other harsh environmental effects through engineering, unlike the aircraft in WW2 and earlier.

...the bit about enviromentally shielded post-modern F-16 pilots was not an insult, and we don't mean flying these old Warbirds as Classic Warbirds, but flying them in combat during WW2 and the conditions those far less well trained pilots faced then. Granted, even highly trained F-16 pilots face air turbulence at high speeds not related to dogfight manuevering.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 12:36 PM
JG4_Helofly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LEXXX, we have only the easy parts of the flight model. Remember? Oleg said that only about 10% of all factors which must be taken into account to have it 100% correct are possible to model. If you look at from this point of view we have an arcade game. We don't even have a simple fatigue model. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. A simplified Fatigue model will include effects other than dogfight "gee" effects. The other causes of pilot fatigue we listed above amount to maybe 10% (a sloppy guess) of the causes known in aviation medicine. We are talking the same thing.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

JG4_Helofly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">IMO the most important fatigue aspect is fatigue from G force. It has a huge impact on game play and is relatively simple to implant in the game. So we should start with that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Correct. G force is a HUGE issue in air combat, along with the other causes of pilot fatigue which are equally simple to implant in the game. We should start with those causes that effect ALL pilots to some degree, but include the "dogfight" gee force effect also as it can be important for the short term dogfight encounter. We all agree here on the use for that.

If "gee" forces are so important, then the hours spent fighting turbulent air are important to pilot alertness. If you fly a P-51Dora over the Berlin map and expect the Bf-109 player you bounce to suffer from gee forces if he/she chooses a Turn~and~Boyd defense, you will have to suffer some effects from having flown such a long distance (although I don't *think* much turbulence is encountered at high altitude, other harsh high altitude effects are encounted).

arjisme
06-20-2007, 12:43 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
The core actions in air combat are setting up the kill, stalking the enemy, planning the attack, and equally important, evading the enemy if needed and spotting a hostile attack and responding to it, all of which are helped by an alert and ready pilot. This is where "dogfight" gee fatigue may be overshadowed in importance by other causes of pilot fatigue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, these are important factors as well. Most, if not all, of those things can be handled w/o additional code changes. Better scenario design (i.e. more realistic flight times and setup) can help a lot here. Then virtual pilots are asked to expend a lot of energy keeping their SA even through long, dull moments of flying. What cannot be readily addressed by me flying the game "as is" is the effects of G force fatigue on my ability to continue maneuvering my plane at will. So I would like this to be added -- and made optional.

I am also interested in other ways to more realistically model things that impact a pilot's ability to control their plane. For example, I like the earlier suggestion that when you blackout (completely), you cannot control the plane at all.

Whatever can be implemented to improve this area, I am for. But I am decidedly NOT for refusing to implement some things just because others are not/will not be implemented.
-

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 01:06 PM
ar****e:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LEXX:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The core actions in air combat are setting up the kill, stalking the enemy, planning the attack, and equally important, evading the enemy if needed and spotting a hostile attack and responding to it, all of which are helped by an alert and ready pilot. This is where "dogfight" gee fatigue may be overshadowed in importance by other causes of pilot fatigue. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree, these are important factors as well. Most, if not all, of those things can be handled w/o additional code changes. Better scenario design (i.e. more realistic flight times and setup) can help a lot here. Then virtual pilots are asked to expend a lot of energy keeping their SA even through long, dull moments of flying. What cannot be readily addressed by me flying the game "as is" is the effects of G force fatigue on my ability to continue maneuvering my plane at will. So I would like this to be added -- and made optional. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Recall Saburo's first -- and last -- long flight from Rabaul to Guadacanal. For the first time in his life (I *think*) he got Bounced from the sun -- his whole flight got bounced, nobody saw it coming apparently. I don't recall Saburo/Caiden mentioning it, but I wonder if they were fatigued, or simply not expecting the effects of radar ground control that could advantageously position the Wildcats, or both effects together, as fatigue can tempt a pilot into hopefull ignorance of dangers.

Flying a long and harsh flight causes pilot fatigue, and makes the pilot more prone to missing a target, or more prone to getting bounced. Planning and <span class="ev_code_yellow">always</span> being aware of what is going on around you is the core of air combat and it rquires as much pilot alertness as possible.

You have to implement a few other "key" (~Sensai) causes of pilot fatigue if you demand that other Online players must suffer from dogfight "gee" force fatigue.

C'mon, it would add alot to the immersion for all players. Yes, having to conserve strength as you tucker out from hard Turn~n~Boyd dogfight manuerving would add an immersive feature to air war simulation, but only a minor aspect, while the tiring of pilots and loss of alertness will also add an immersive aspect that had far greater effect in WW2 combat aviation.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif History Tip:: The hardball dogfight manuevering popular in post-modern competitive Online dogfight gameplay has nowhere near the importance in WW2 combat aviation. We discuss it here because dogfight "gee" fatigue is a major -- perhaps the major -- aspect of post-modern Online dogfight manuever simulation.

lowfighter
06-20-2007, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
but include the "dogfight" gee force effect also as it can be important for the short term dogfight encounter. We all agree here on the use for that.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

RL pilots experienced G-force effects and that's precisely why they usually AVOIDED getting into prolonged G-strain fights. It's about a whole general atitude when entering and during combat. You know that i'm sure. This same attitude would be translated to the virtual pilot too, offline or online. This thing was crucial then and BASIC, very BASIC, not as you say "can be important". It's basic because no matter how fit you are it's a matter of minutes till even the fittest and freshest will give up in RL.

And by the way, please refrain from your well known hate towards onliners, just a little request from another offliner.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 01:34 PM
lowfighter:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">RL pilots experienced G-force effects and that's precisely why they usually AVOIDED getting into prolonged G-strain fights. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Pilots on the attack who wished to avoid prolonged G-strain fights did so because they were looking for a successful offensive attack and not turning fights.


Recall the Japanese pilots preferred to drag their Brit and Ussian opponents into hard turning fights because dogfight agility was their doctrine in both aircraft design and air combat, at least in the first half of the Pacific war. Flying Tigers avoided turning fights because their aircraft were disadvantaged in such fights.

In Major Boyington's first encounter with the Japanese (Ki-27 I think), he tried turning, straining his massive muscular neck muscles as was his traditional trick of out-turning other Marine pilots during training, but he was forced into a diving escape as the Japanese pilot out-turned him anyways. This was the first and last time Boyington ignored Chennault's order of not turning against the enemy. I think from that time, he avoided hard turning fights against slow Japanese opponents, but not because of "gee" forces.

Boyington was not avoiding G-strain combat because of Gee forces, but because he learned quickly in real time to avoid turning against aircraft that could easily out turn his own aircraft.


In 1941, VVS pilots were ordered to avoid hard turning combat, but mainly because they were not experienced enough to handle it, or so I read. Things are not as simple as we computer gamers want them to be.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And by the way, please refrain from your well known hate towards onliners, just a little request from another offliner. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I am the greatest friend of Online players. I'm just not a friend to the minority of hostile and bitter Old Timer Online gamers that this webboard is famous for in the combat flight sim community. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 01:50 PM
@ LEXXX, the problem with extended fatigue elements is that they will depend on the aircraft. You mentioned the f16 cockpit which is exellent for the pilot ( temperature, pressure,... ) and therefore the pilot has just to fight against G's. In WWII there are many factors which would tire the pilot, but it depends very much on the aircraft you fly. For exemple, a p 47 cockpit with much space would be better for the pilot than the very small 109 cockpit. Or some planes had pressurised cockpits, others had problems with temperature ( engine heat and so on) and others had problems with exhost gases which went into the cockpit. And then do not forget planes with open cockpits,............. .

The problem is, these effects on human body are extremly variable from one plane to an other. It would be nearly impossible to model this about correct for each plane. For the "G fatigue" this is not a problem because it's nearly only related to the manoeuvres and not the plane, so same for all.
the next step after "G fatigue" would be imo adding some slight changes due to seat position ( ex. fw 190 ) or G suits (ex. late mustang pilots). Then maybe oxygen limitation at high alt and so on. Of course controle heavyness must also be taken into account.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 02:14 PM
Helofly, those are some deep ideas, and that's what we are talking about. You only missed the "gee" effects of long hours in turbulent air which might be roughly similar in all aircraft -- depending on flying time also. In fact, long hours in the cockpit may lower a pilot's ability to withstand hard dogfight manuever "gee" effects. You see, it all has to come together, or it all fails.

We have seen here ideas for "averaging" the G-strain fatigue -- averaging G-fatigue among pilots from Newbie to Ace status, but I don't like it -- Saburo could go for 30 minutes, Newbie VVS pilots far less. The averaging idea could be applied to aircraft specifice effects as you noted, but I don't like that either. Better if we admit that pilot fatigue does not require the complicated Maths that flight models need, so each aircraft could have a simple table based FM (Fatigue Model) -- with not nearly the effort needed to creating flight models.


JG4_Helofly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">...others had problems with temperature ( engine heat and so on) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
La-5 ... The JG Squads will have to jump on this one.

LStarosta
06-20-2007, 02:20 PM
I say that you take a physical fitness test whose results are processed into the simulator so that the simulator can incorporate your body's characteristics into the simulator.

Then I'll be able to outturn all of you fatties!

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 02:26 PM
I realy missed the turbulent air effect http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Well, in coop missions or on dogfightservers such a fatigue effect would not have a great influence because all planes start at the same time unlike in real life. So if both sides loose the same amount of fitness due to turbulent air you could simple leave this effect out because it would be the same for all.

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 02:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LStarosta:
I say that you take a physical fitness test whose results are processed into the simulator so that the simulator can incorporate your body's characteristics into the simulator.

Then I'll be able to outturn all of you fatties! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes we see that you must be highly fit according to your picture http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 02:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I'll take a physical wreck as wing leader anyday, like Georges Guynemer ("sickly little girl") or George Preddy ("couldn't punch his way out of paper bagg")


JG54:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Well, in coop missions or on dogfightservers such a fatigue effect would not have a great influence because all planes start at the same time unlike in real life. So if both sides loose the same amount of fitness due to turbulent air you could simple leave this effect out because it would be the same for all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That can be simulated. The mission designer gives a fatigue factor to each side to represent flying hours. For things like Battle of Britain, it might not be much (a sloppy guess). For things like Battle of Berlin (8th Air Force), The Meds, or the Pacific as discussed above, it could be an additional immersive feature, and an option of course.


...all planes start at the same time unlike in real life.

Well, there we go -- like no "gee" fatigue modelling, totally unlike real life.

JG4_Helofly
06-20-2007, 02:53 PM
Ok, then why not. I think we are through the subject now, at least I don't know which aspect of fatigue we could have forgotten. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 03:45 PM
hehe ... Previous pilot injuries? In BoB And Beyond, Oleg is making previous aircraft damage carry forward to later missions. If Sensai is correct about the physical being more important than flight and damage modelling, it could matter alot. Recall Saburo/Caiden blaming the one eye for mis-identifiying that squadron of Hellcats as friendly.

BfHeFwMe
06-20-2007, 06:18 PM
I still want an off switch, you can set up whatever arcade stuff you want. To me it will always smack of arcade due to the fact your not actually being debilitated one iota.

Someone explain to me how you go about modeling G-lock realistically. Fact is you don't lost one bit of SA during a game black out. Fact is everyone is fully aware of their current or last aspect of flight, and taking or setting up the corrective action for recovery during a black out. There's nothing remotely transmittable to you as a pilot that can possibly mimic you losing consciousness and awareness of whats going on.

A high percentage of G-lock victims don't regain SA even when they regain consciousness, it's auger in time. How do you mimic or code that? You can't.

How about hypoxia, the screen starts to go fuzzy and what do you do, push stick forward, or hit the mask key. Sorry, but that's not how hypoxia works, it's insidious. Fact is the majority will never recognize it and die completely oblivious to the fact it's happening, unless it's a rapid and violent decompression.

Even today pilots must go through regular pressure chamber training to assist in recognizing hypoxia and it's affects. How exactly does one call a screen going blurry and you in total control of all your senses able to quickly and logically respond realism? Hypoxia strips you of these faculties, that's why its so dangerous to begin with.

Shall I go on, but don't forget I want an "off" for realism switch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think money better and wiser spent should go into airframe and systems damage modeling. Pulling excessive G should begin to crack warp and bend things which become accumulative.

Also curious how you propose to model realistic pilot fatigue. How is it your pilot is going to start making mistakes, perhaps the gear should fail to come down despite you pushing the button. How about your guns uncharge themselves to simulate you messing up. How about that kind of fatigue, stuff that gets you with real consequences.

If all your after is messing with stick forces, how exactly do you propose to give the player feedback into what his physical status is?

I can already see the doggy servers, guys merging, both bank for a turn, one guy can't. He continues in the bank and deliberately kisses the ground denying a freebie lunch. Goes back and grabs a fresh pilot.

Careful what you ask for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

rosaenrico
06-20-2007, 07:19 PM
I totally agree with the argumentations brought in favour of fatigue-modelling (I' ve always thought that physical pilot restrictions should equal the importance of a reasonably good flying model).
A little argument I would like to add:
we already have an in-game very simple human fatigue modelled: at high speeds some planes' elevators become very hard, this to represent the excessive force requested to displace them against air flow. The sim, by taking into account this:
a) brings into the game human strenght
a) makes the assumption that every virtual pilot has the same strength
c) is not drifting towards arcadish, as we can assure.
Cheers
enrico

LStarosta
06-20-2007, 07:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BfHeFwMe:
I still want an off switch, you can set up whatever arcade stuff you want. To me it will always smack of arcade due to the fact your not actually being debilitated one iota.

Someone explain to me how you go about modeling G-lock realistically. Fact is you don't lost one bit of SA during a game black out. Fact is everyone is fully aware of their current or last aspect of flight, and taking or setting up the corrective action for recovery during a black out. There's nothing remotely transmittable to you as a pilot that can possibly mimic you losing consciousness and awareness of whats going on.

A high percentage of G-lock victims don't regain SA even when they regain consciousness, it's auger in time. How do you mimic or code that? You can't.

How about hypoxia, the screen starts to go fuzzy and what do you do, push stick forward, or hit the mask key. Sorry, but that's not how hypoxia works, it's insidious. Fact is the majority will never recognize it and die completely oblivious to the fact it's happening, unless it's a rapid and violent decompression.

Even today pilots must go through regular pressure chamber training to assist in recognizing hypoxia and it's affects. How exactly does one call a screen going blurry and you in total control of all your senses able to quickly and logically respond realism? Hypoxia strips you of these faculties, that's why its so dangerous to begin with.

Shall I go on, but don't forget I want an "off" for realism switch. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I think money better and wiser spent should go into airframe and systems damage modeling. Pulling excessive G should begin to crack warp and bend things which become accumulative.

Also curious how you propose to model realistic pilot fatigue. How is it your pilot is going to start making mistakes, perhaps the gear should fail to come down despite you pushing the button. How about your guns uncharge themselves to simulate you messing up. How about that kind of fatigue, stuff that gets you with real consequences.

If all your after is messing with stick forces, how exactly do you propose to give the player feedback into what his physical status is?

I can already see the doggy servers, guys merging, both bank for a turn, one guy can't. He continues in the bank and deliberately kisses the ground denying a freebie lunch. Goes back and grabs a fresh pilot.

Careful what you ask for. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Easy to fix that. Ship the game with an oxygen unit and an air sealed face mask. The oxygen unit interfaces with the altimeter in the game and delivers oxygen accordingly. If you fly too high for too long without pressing Shift-M to apply the mask, you will suffer the effects of hypoxia.

I am currently deliberating a method of simulating loss of oxygenated blood flow to the brain. Current asphyxiator models are less than reliable and may result in nasty bugs such as death.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 09:15 PM
BfHeFwMe:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Even today pilots must go through regular pressure chamber training to assist in recognizing hypoxia and it's affects. How exactly does one call a screen going blurry and you in total control of all your senses able to quickly and logically respond realism? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
You don't. You're right. Hypoxia can approache undetected, although it can depend on pilot experience and training as do all forms of fatigue. Pilot Breath as an audio form of Stamina Guage or Health Bar for everybody has been suggested. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bf:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Also curious how you propose to model realistic pilot fatigue. How is it your pilot is going to start making mistakes, perhaps the gear should fail to come down despite you pushing the button. How about your guns uncharge themselves to simulate you messing up. How about that kind of fatigue, stuff that gets you with real consequences. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Do'h. Good points to consider. I was thinking more of pilot awareness of the air combat environment outside the cockpit which suffers severely under the fatigue of long flying hours. If I'm flying Fw-190Antons against long flying P-51Doras over the Berlin map, I want my opponent BnZ players to suffer from some lack of alertness when I manuever into the sun to bounce butt, maybe having the Dora players suffer prematurely fading Text Icons or Dots, slowing down their TrekkieIR response (there will be street Protests over this http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif ), etc...stuff like that, all dependent on the experience and "physical condition"(?) of the pilot being simulated of course. A pilot who is both inexperienced and fatigued is a pilot especially vulnerable to being bounced.

Assume no fatigue effects are modelled. The Online "problem" with dogfight manuever gee fatigue is solved by playing with historical realism where the primary goal of air combat is not repeated "fun" diving attacks against the cornered lone enemy dogfight plane while the enemy bombers -- if there are any bombers -- fly on to their target unmolested.

LEXX_Luthor
06-20-2007, 09:34 PM
rosaenrico:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I totally agree with the argumentations brought in favour of fatigue-modelling (I' ve always thought that physical pilot restrictions should equal the importance of a reasonably good flying model).
A little argument I would like to add:
we already have an in-game very simple human fatigue modelled: at high speeds some planes' elevators become very hard, this to represent the excessive force requested to displace them against air flow. The sim, by taking into account this:
a) brings into the game human strenght
a) makes the assumption that every virtual pilot has the same strength
c) is not drifting towards arcadish, as we can assure.
Cheers
enrico </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I misread this, and it is Good. The control forces can effect all pilots. Although "stronger" pilots may theoretically have some advantage, I *think* we find that extremely high control forces that can be found in extreme flight conditions can beat up any pilot from weakest to strongest, so the assumption of averaging pilot strength might work acceptably.

However, this is not the same as the fatigue caused by gee forces that this thread drifted into after Ratsack's quote at the start of this thread was ignored. If we recall, gee tolerance is more dependent on pilot experience and training, and these should never be averaged.

JG4_Helofly
06-21-2007, 05:04 AM
BfHeFwMe, I realy don't see why a fatigue model would make the game arcade. It is arcade without such a model because like in arcade games you can pull impossible manouvres for ever.
And if you think like this you also consider the black out effect as arcade. So should Oleg take all this out to make it more "realistic" in your view?
It's great realisme when planes are fighting against each other in manouvres which could only be flown by RC planes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif
What you call realisme is arcade for me and vis versa.

WWSensei
06-21-2007, 07:03 AM
If many of you recall there was a post of interview with a Fw-190 pilot to get his opinion of the game. He flew the game and made minor comments about the feel and the look being very good. Then he got into combat and the opponent began a series of the rolls and high-jinking the AI (and many humans) do.

His response was to pull up and say, "I'll just wait until he tires out in a few seconds and then finish him off." (or something close to that). The enemy turned the tables and shot him down. He was surprised and stated many times that wasn't right.

Eric Brown recommended hugely dialed down joystick settings because the flat 100s across the board were far to reactive--too quick in the onset of Gs and the aircraft weren't as smooth.

That is the type of thing I'm talking about. A totally different choice, tactic and result because a significant factor in tactical ACM was missing.

I don't think things like:

Fear, adrenaline, boredom, poor SA from bad scanning etc need to be modeled in the game because you can actually experience those effects in real life while playing the game in its current form. If I come home from a long, hard day at work and sit down to fly I am a far less effective pilot than when I'm fresh. You want to simulate a pilot losing his edge after cruising a boring patrol for an hour? You can do that now--just design the mission properly.

However, no matter how hard you yank on that stick or throw your aircraft around the sky your *** will still be glued to a chair not feeling a thing. You cannot experience that feeling or its effects in the real world like many of the other factors.

Modeling G force and not modeling other factors is not like modeling roll and not modeling engine power. It's a whole order of magnitude of a different flaw. Not modeling G forces--even in an oversimplistic, averaged linear effect is worse than not modeling roll, engine power, weapon effectiveness, damage model, ordinance loadouts, drag, lift, and thrust combined.

Why is the G force effect important? Because it is critical in ACM. In fact, I'd argue against adding a G force effect to something like FSX because it simply isn't that big of a factor in non-combat, non-aerobatic flying. However, it's huge in those environments.

Today we have virtual pilots who pull continuous repeated (a dozen or more) 6G-9G maneuvers with no ill effects where in real life if they pulled
more than 3 or 4 of those they would be exhausted and unable to maneuver very well after that.

As for the F-16 comments--I didn't take them as an insult, just comments of ignorance as it shows very little knowledge of the F-16 and flying. If you really think other factors are eliminated you are sadly mistaken. I don't point out G forces because they are the last unsolved problem for flight--quite the opposite as they are well understood.

I pointed it out because they are relevant. If you are pulling a turn at 60 degrees of bank you are pulling 2 Gs whether you are flying an F-16 or Cessna. At 80 degrees you are pulling 6Gs. How many vpilots out there routinely pull 80 degree banked turns for indefinite periods of time?

Some of the other factors mentioned:
-freezing temperatures at altitude -- since most of the combat in this games occurs at 5000m or less it isn't as significant. In general, Western Front would have this as a factor far more than any other AOR. Important, but not as big a factor as a G induced fatigue during a dogfight.

- 2 hours of constant G force in turbulent air. This is normal flight fatigue. After an 8 hour work day the level of fatigue is similar. It's a valid point but not as important as combat induced G force fatigue. It doesn't happen as often. One 4G turn for 30 seconds will make a 2 hour turbulent ride seem like a cakewalk.

- lack of oxygen - should already be modeled but again, with a majority of combat taking place at low altitude it isn't as key a factor. Burning throat, mask irritation--sorry, those just aren't significant enough factors. I'd equate it the amount of irritation I get from wearing my headset or staring at the glare of my monitor.

-- Two hours of high decibel sounds dulling the brain. That's there now. Do you not play with the sound on? I can't stand flying the 109 because of it's high pitched whine it makes. Model sound correctly and this is one of those effects the human body can feel without simulating the effect in the game.

-- Blinding high altitude sunlight? Sorry, that's a stretch. 90% of the players of this game seldom stray above 3000 meters much less the altitudes required for that to even be a factor and yes, last time I checked aviator sun glasses were around back then and used quite often. UV blindness is a minimal factor.

I'm sorry, but when an experienced veteran with actual flight time in actual combat and chooses a valid tactic based on the expectation his opponent will get tired doing what he is doing and is shocked that isn't considered in the game it is significant.

Bremspropeller
06-21-2007, 07:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- lack of oxygen - should already be modeled but again, with a majority of combat taking place at low altitude it isn't as key a factor. Burning throat, mask irritation--sorry, those just aren't significant enough factors. I'd equate it the amount of irritation I get from wearing my headset or staring at the glare of my monitor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Well, I'd say, with an improved fatigue-model we'll see DFs gaining in alt.
I can already imaging the smoking holes in the ground because 8 out of 10 ppl in a DF die of G-LOC's consequences http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Sensei, do you breathe pure oxygen in fighters or is it an air-mixture?

lowfighter
06-21-2007, 07:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
If many of you recall there was a post of interview with a Fw-190 pilot to get his opinion of the game. He flew the game and made minor comments about the feel and the look being very good. Then he got into combat and the opponent began a series of the rolls and high-jinking the AI (and many humans) do.

His response was to pull up and say, "I'll just wait until he tires out in a few seconds and then finish him off." (or something close to that). The enemy turned the tables and shot him down. He was surprised and stated many times that wasn't right.

Eric Brown recommended hugely dialed down joystick settings because the flat 100s across the board were far to reactive--too quick in the onset of Gs and the aircraft weren't as smooth.

That is the type of thing I'm talking about. A totally different choice, tactic and result because a significant factor in tactical ACM was missing.

I don't think things like:

Fear, adrenaline, boredom, poor SA from bad scanning etc need to be modeled in the game because you can actually experience those effects in real life while playing the game in its current form. If I come home from a long, hard day at work and sit down to fly I am a far less effective pilot than when I'm fresh. You want to simulate a pilot losing his edge after cruising a boring patrol for an hour? You can do that now--just design the mission properly.

However, no matter how hard you yank on that stick or throw your aircraft around the sky your *** will still be glued to a chair not feeling a thing. You cannot experience that feeling or its effects in the real world like many of the other factors.

Modeling G force and not modeling other factors is not like modeling roll and not modeling engine power. It's a whole order of magnitude of a different flaw. Not modeling G forces--even in an oversimplistic, averaged linear effect is worse than not modeling roll, engine power, weapon effectiveness, damage model, ordinance loadouts, drag, lift, and thrust combined.

Why is the G force effect important? Because it is critical in ACM. In fact, I'd argue against adding a G force effect to something like FSX because it simply isn't that big of a factor in non-combat, non-aerobatic flying. However, it's huge in those environments.

Today we have virtual pilots who pull continuous repeated (a dozen or more) 6G-9G maneuvers with no ill effects where in real life if they pulled
more than 3 or 4 of those they would be exhausted and unable to maneuver very well after that.

As for the F-16 comments--I didn't take them as an insult, just comments of ignorance as it shows very little knowledge of the F-16 and flying. If you really think other factors are eliminated you are sadly mistaken. I don't point out G forces because they are the last unsolved problem for flight--quite the opposite as they are well understood.

I pointed it out because they are relevant. If you are pulling a turn at 60 degrees of bank you are pulling 2 Gs whether you are flying an F-16 or Cessna. At 80 degrees you are pulling 6Gs. How many vpilots out there routinely pull 80 degree banked turns for indefinite periods of time?

Some of the other factors mentioned:
-freezing temperatures at altitude -- since most of the combat in this games occurs at 5000m or less it isn't as significant. In general, Western Front would have this as a factor far more than any other AOR. Important, but not as big a factor as a G induced fatigue during a dogfight.

- 2 hours of constant G force in turbulent air. This is normal flight fatigue. After an 8 hour work day the level of fatigue is similar. It's a valid point but not as important as combat induced G force fatigue. It doesn't happen as often. One 4G turn for 30 seconds will make a 2 hour turbulent ride seem like a cakewalk.

- lack of oxygen - should already be modeled but again, with a majority of combat taking place at low altitude it isn't as key a factor. Burning throat, mask irritation--sorry, those just aren't significant enough factors. I'd equate it the amount of irritation I get from wearing my headset or staring at the glare of my monitor.

-- Two hours of high decibel sounds dulling the brain. That's there now. Do you not play with the sound on? I can't stand flying the 109 because of it's high pitched whine it makes. Model sound correctly and this is one of those effects the human body can feel without simulating the effect in the game.

-- Blinding high altitude sunlight? Sorry, that's a stretch. 90% of the players of this game seldom stray above 3000 meters much less the altitudes required for that to even be a factor and yes, last time I checked aviator sun glasses were around back then and used quite often. UV blindness is a minimal factor.

I'm sorry, but when an experienced veteran with actual flight time in actual combat and chooses a valid tactic based on the expectation his opponent will get tired doing what he is doing and is shocked that isn't considered in the game it is significant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

And Sensei can you imagine some other manifestation of G-fatigue, besides loss of authority over aircraft, being posible to model in the game? Asking because you experienced it...
And still there's that nice question (objection) above: How can the player be made aware in the game of his state of fatigue (besides the loss of authority over aircraft)? The suggestions being up to now(in an earlier thread) a kind of fatigue gauge displayed on the screen or hearing "your" own breath?

JG4_Helofly
06-21-2007, 07:48 AM
Not possible to say it better Sensei http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

KrasniyYastreb
06-21-2007, 05:58 PM
Waving the "fatigue" flag around without being specific isn't likely to lead anywhere.

Ok do what is the actual manifestation of this G-fatigue? Reduced tolerance to additional G-loading?

Besides, if someones is doing many 6g maneuvers in a row in a DF game, they are hemorrhaging energy and will likely lose the fight anyway.

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2007, 06:00 PM
Amazing, BfHeFwMe is the only one here who knows what WW2 comabat aviation is -- or the only one willing to talk here about it.

Stunning. And fascinating.

Sensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Eric Brown recommended hugely dialed down joystick settings because the flat 100s across the board were far to reactive--too quick in the onset of Gs and the aircraft weren't as smooth. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Watch this closely. As far as I know, at no time has Oleg Maddox ever suggested 100s across the board for joystick settings. Who suggested Eric Brown try 100s? Please tell me it was Oleg Maddox. I don't recall what the default game joystick settings were.


WWSensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
I don't think things like:

Fear, adrenaline, boredom, poor SA from bad scanning etc need to be modeled in the game because you can actually experience those effects in real life while playing the game in its current form. <span class="ev_code_yellow">If I come home from a long, hard day at work and sit down to fly</span> I am a far less effective pilot than when I'm fresh. You want to simulate a pilot losing his edge after cruising a boring patrol for an hour? You can do that now--just design the mission properly. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
grrr. misread this one again.

-- You mean ask Oleg's customers to do something like swim half a mile (good exhaustion there for most), or some similar exhausting activity before playing the game. That is a false arguement and a deception as WW2 pilots had to fly their missions, where Oleg's customers do not.


How many times have we read about WW2 pilots having to be carried from their aircraft by their mechanic -- not because of injuries -- not because of dogfight "gee" fatigue -- but because of sheer exhaustion of flying combat missions -- from the effects Sensai says are not important, which may include some dogfight gee fatigue, but not limited to it? Very interesting stuff here indeed.


WWSensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">As for the F-16 comments--I didn't take them as an insult, just comments of ignorance as it shows very little knowledge of the F-16 and flying. If you really think other factors are eliminated you are sadly mistaken. I don't point out G forces because they are the last unsolved problem for flight--quite the opposite as they are well understood. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you are ready to come to this webboard and discuss WW2 military aviation, and even learn about F-16s, from the combat flight sim community, we are ready to talk with you. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

This is getting *really* strange.

LStarosta
06-21-2007, 06:18 PM
LOL Lexx STFU and color already. I can't believe what kind of sh*t you're spewing.

I can't believe that you, a flight simulator enthusiast, is so condescendingly telling off a Viper driver who spent years learning the inside-and-outs of his airframe. LOL! Please tell me you were on a fishing trip!

What kind of aeronautical experience do you have regarding aerospace physiology?

JG4_Helofly
06-21-2007, 06:30 PM
Ok guy, most of us seem to be in favor of such a fatigue model, so let's discuss how it should be done precisely at the beginning.
My Ideas:

1. Visualisation: We should be able to know how tired the pilot is when listening to the breath. If the pilot is out of breath we will hear it this way. Then a blured vision should be introduced when pulling high Gs like this RL pilot said.

2. The model itself: I suggest to start with fatigue from G force and maybe a slight decrease in pilot fitness when flying long distances; also the pilot should get tired when he trys to pull against high stick forces. For exemple, a 109 pilot would get tired faster due to the heavy elevator if used at high speed to it's maxium. Same goes for the ailerons of the spit and so on.

3. Effects: As said before, first the pilot should not longer to be able to apply full controle input. The more the pilot gets tired the less he should be able to yank on the stick. Then the blured vision as mentioned before.

4. Recovery: After the decrease of fitness from tiering manoeuvres the pilot should be able to recover after a few minutes to almost 100%, let's say 95%. This would also depend on how much and how long the pilot was exposed to tiering manoeuvres. If you go to the edge the pilot would need more time to recover and would not reach the maximum anymore. Also he should get tired quicker when starting again with extrem manouvres before he'd recover completly.

Now it's your turn. Any suggestions?

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2007, 06:35 PM
WWSensai:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Some of the other factors mentioned:
-freezing temperatures at altitude -- since most of the combat in this games occurs at 5000m or less it isn't as significant. In general, Western Front would have this as a factor far more than any other AOR. Important, but not as big a factor as a G induced fatigue during a dogfight. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed! At the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option. But if we do fly at high altitudes for long periods of time these effects should be modelled.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- 2 hours of constant G force in turbulent air. This is normal flight fatigue. After an 8 hour work day the level of fatigue is similar. It's a valid point but not as important as combat induced G force fatigue. It doesn't happen as often. One 4G turn for 30 seconds will make a 2 hour turbulent ride seem like a cakewalk. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed! Its a valid point for pilot awareness of the air combat environment as we tried to talk with you about earlier, but you declined to respond here. The comparison of "normal" work hours is baloney -- unless the work is flying long WW2 combat missions. Perhaps the work hours compare with a comfortably suited and shielded post-modern F-16 "pilot," but it doesn't compare with WW2 pilots flying long combat missions.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">- lack of oxygen - should already be modeled but again, with a majority of combat taking place at low altitude it isn't as key a factor. Burning throat, mask irritation--sorry, those just aren't significant enough factors. I'd equate it the amount of irritation I get from wearing my headset or staring at the glare of my monitor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, at the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option. We covered this above. And we agree, burning throat and mask irritation are comparatively vert minor, but are only two of many contributing factors to overall pilot fatigue over long periods of flying -- including mental distraction.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-- Two hours of high decibel sounds dulling the brain. That's there now. Do you not play with the sound on? I can't stand flying the 109 because of it's high pitched whine it makes. Model sound correctly and this is one of those effects the human body can feel without simulating the effect in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Perhaps the "F-16" is very quiet in the cockpit?


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">-- Blinding high altitude sunlight? Sorry, that's a stretch. 90% of the players of this game seldom stray above 3000 meters much less the altitudes required for that to even be a factor and yes, last time I checked aviator sun glasses were around back then and used quite often. UV blindness is a minimal factor. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Granted, at the altitudes this community flies at, diving is not an option. But -- some of Oleg's customers are interested in high altitude air warfare -- for example, BSS_Vidar loves flying P-51s, and the loud sound of wings snapping off certainly is deafening and distracting to him/her during air combat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm sorry, but when an experienced veteran with actual flight time in actual combat and chooses a valid tactic based on the expectation his opponent will get tired doing what he is doing and is shocked that isn't considered in the game it is significant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please don't compare post-modern combat flying with WW2 combat aviation. Its a different bag. Yes, all these factors make a pilot exhausted and less alert, although this also depends on experience and training, and also specific aircraft (F-16 may be a pillow). And yes, they are "as important" as dogfight "gee" fatigue, as the dogfight was not the most important form of air combat -- although The Dogfight may be the most important form of competition in Online *dogfight* gameplay.

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2007, 07:25 PM
JG4Helofly, that sounds good to me. How to do the long flying fatigue...mmm?? Since I'm the one most Whining about it, I guess I'm at bat now. Exploring in more detail your point #2...

JG4Helofly:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">2. The model itself: I suggest to start with fatigue from G force and maybe a slight decrease in pilot fitness when flying long distances;... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
(2a) Its something that should be optional for a server or single player. Suppose you fly fairly small map, say 100km. The setting for pilot fatigue can be chosen to model various distances flown, or severity of weather or other conditions, and perhaps could be aircraft specific. The server (online/LAN play), game option menu (single player) or mission creator(*) would set the "pilot fatigue" for the players that had "flown from England" -- this setting can be set to Zero, meaning the option can be turned off.

(2b) In extreme cases, WW2 pilots often were carried from their crates by their mechanics because of fatigue -- even after a long flight home (see Helofly's #4 above), so the option of more than just slight initial fatigue -- the pre-dogfight gee fatigue -- will be needed.

(2c) As for how to model loss of pilot alertness to the air combat environment over long flights, we'd have to think about it. I think its been poasted already that pulling lots of "gee" during a dogfight would cause lack of alertness, so the long flying fatigue may not require seperate effects.

(2d) Averaging has been suggested, but the brutal extremes of pilot experience and training found during the war are far too large to average. It would be like averaging Bill Gates salary, say 20million$, with a chap/chappette programming flight sims with a 20,000$ salary. The "average" would be deceptive, and not very useful. This applies to both the long flying fatigue and dogfight gee fatigue.

(*)(2e) If you wish to model a long flight with many Newbie pilots being led by one or two experienced pilots, each plane could be set with pilot fatigue set in the mission editor. It would be *nice* for Offline play if the AI could be programmed with some form of fatigue also, and such a feature could be useful in Online War where fatigue prone humoid players fill the seats of AI pilots...that filling AI seat process allows LAN Online War gameplay even for two players -- or even one "single" player -- you see, Offline play and Online play do not have to be so different.

This is a quick typeup, and its gotta be stuffed full of contradictions, but its the first draft I hope.

lowfighter
06-21-2007, 09:39 PM
An average model was suggested in previous posts here for 2 reasons mainly:
1) As a first step modeling of fatigue effects. It's programing, and it takes time and resources from the developers. Very simple reason. Accomplish the first step then if possible add, refine etc. Remember the flight model in original il2? It took time to get to the flight model we have now. It's possible that once first step is accomplished, additions like initial fatigue state and variable endurance can be added quite easily, and I hope that's the case. It's quite possible, but we don't know that for sure, only when developers will accomplish first step they'll know how easy is to go forward.
2) even an average simple model would be better than nothing. The effect is simply too big and the lack of it has to big an impact on the way we play the game.

I've been saying somwhere above that even a simple model assuming the BEST fitness and freshness would be better than nothing. And I strongly believe that even that would radically change the maner of flying, offline and online.


Helofly has a good and healthy starting agenda http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-21-2007, 09:40 PM
LStarosta:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">LOL Lexx STFU and color already. I can't believe what kind of sh*t you're spewing.

I can't believe that you, a flight simulator enthusiast, is so condescendingly telling off a Viper driver who spent years learning the inside-and-outs of his airframe. LOL! Please tell me you were on a fishing trip!

What kind of aeronautical experience do you have regarding aerospace physiology? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ya, if you saw my pre-edited poasting above yours, I got Sloppy and partially and wrongly misread Sensai. However, we might all enjoy hearing more about why Eric Brown tried flat 100s for joystick settings, and if its true, who set the man up like that. See above again if you wish.


-------------


KrasniyYastreb:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Besides, if someones is doing many 6g maneuvers in a row in a DF game, they are hemorrhaging energy and will likely lose the fight anyway. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nailed it -- DF game. Its "fun" but has little to do with WW2 military aviation. What is not considered "online fun" is the selected lone defensive opponent never getting tired through performing evasive manuevers. Hence, we focus on that alone, and ignore Ratsack's quote at the start of this thread.

Von_Rat
06-22-2007, 02:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WWSensei:
If many of you recall there was a post of interview with a Fw-190 pilot to get his opinion of the game. He flew the game and made minor comments about the feel and the look being very good. Then he got into combat and the opponent began a series of the rolls and high-jinking the AI (and many humans) do.

His response was to pull up and say, "I'll just wait until he tires out in a few seconds and then finish him off." (or something close to that). The enemy turned the tables and shot him down. He was surprised and stated many times that wasn't right.

Eric Brown recommended hugely dialed down joystick settings because the flat 100s across the board were far to reactive--too quick in the onset of Gs and the aircraft weren't as smooth.

That is the type of thing I'm talking about. A totally different choice, tactic and result because a significant factor in tactical ACM was missing.

I don't think things like:

Fear, adrenaline, boredom, poor SA from bad scanning etc need to be modeled in the game because you can actually experience those effects in real life while playing the game in its current form. If I come home from a long, hard day at work and sit down to fly I am a far less effective pilot than when I'm fresh. You want to simulate a pilot losing his edge after cruising a boring patrol for an hour? You can do that now--just design the mission properly.

However, no matter how hard you yank on that stick or throw your aircraft around the sky your *** will still be glued to a chair not feeling a thing. You cannot experience that feeling or its effects in the real world like many of the other factors.

Modeling G force and not modeling other factors is not like modeling roll and not modeling engine power. It's a whole order of magnitude of a different flaw. Not modeling G forces--even in an oversimplistic, averaged linear effect is worse than not modeling roll, engine power, weapon effectiveness, damage model, ordinance loadouts, drag, lift, and thrust combined.

Why is the G force effect important? Because it is critical in ACM. In fact, I'd argue against adding a G force effect to something like FSX because it simply isn't that big of a factor in non-combat, non-aerobatic flying. However, it's huge in those environments.

Today we have virtual pilots who pull continuous repeated (a dozen or more) 6G-9G maneuvers with no ill effects where in real life if they pulled
more than 3 or 4 of those they would be exhausted and unable to maneuver very well after that.

As for the F-16 comments--I didn't take them as an insult, just comments of ignorance as it shows very little knowledge of the F-16 and flying. If you really think other factors are eliminated you are sadly mistaken. I don't point out G forces because they are the last unsolved problem for flight--quite the opposite as they are well understood.

I pointed it out because they are relevant. If you are pulling a turn at 60 degrees of bank you are pulling 2 Gs whether you are flying an F-16 or Cessna. At 80 degrees you are pulling 6Gs. How many vpilots out there routinely pull 80 degree banked turns for indefinite periods of time?

Some of the other factors mentioned:
-freezing temperatures at altitude -- since most of the combat in this games occurs at 5000m or less it isn't as significant. In general, Western Front would have this as a factor far more than any other AOR. Important, but not as big a factor as a G induced fatigue during a dogfight.

- 2 hours of constant G force in turbulent air. This is normal flight fatigue. After an 8 hour work day the level of fatigue is similar. It's a valid point but not as important as combat induced G force fatigue. It doesn't happen as often. One 4G turn for 30 seconds will make a 2 hour turbulent ride seem like a cakewalk.

- lack of oxygen - should already be modeled but again, with a majority of combat taking place at low altitude it isn't as key a factor. Burning throat, mask irritation--sorry, those just aren't significant enough factors. I'd equate it the amount of irritation I get from wearing my headset or staring at the glare of my monitor.

-- Two hours of high decibel sounds dulling the brain. That's there now. Do you not play with the sound on? I can't stand flying the 109 because of it's high pitched whine it makes. Model sound correctly and this is one of those effects the human body can feel without simulating the effect in the game.

-- Blinding high altitude sunlight? Sorry, that's a stretch. 90% of the players of this game seldom stray above 3000 meters much less the altitudes required for that to even be a factor and yes, last time I checked aviator sun glasses were around back then and used quite often. UV blindness is a minimal factor.

I'm sorry, but when an experienced veteran with actual flight time in actual combat and chooses a valid tactic based on the expectation his opponent will get tired doing what he is doing and is shocked that isn't considered in the game it is significant. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

GREAT POST http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

unlike most idiots here (myself included) WWSensei actually has RL experiance to back him up.

rosaenrico
06-22-2007, 04:34 AM
Hi all,
I agree to what Lowfighter proposed: a simple fatigue induced by the force applied to control surfaces would be good at the beginning.
This way, once the virtual pilot apply a heavy force, his max force decreases of a certain degree, reducing maneuvering possibilities; time will permit recovery.

An idea while writing this post:
perhaps there is a way to introduce this effect even in the curren sim:
I knows very very little about Force feedback devices but I think that the sim gives output signals regarding the heavyness of control surfaces.
If this is true, i. e. the game already knows the forces and gives them to us, we could use these outwards signals to modify in real time the joystick in-wards signal by means of a program.
In other words: I recall a freeware background program used years ago to "personalise" and calibrate the joystick; this program apparently stayed between Windows (Joystick input signal) and the games which used these windows information.
Maybe it is possible to build a similar program that uses force-feedback signals to progressively modify what windows gives to the sim. I know nothing about software and all of this may easily be all wrong and inconsistent, but who knows ...
Cheers
Enrico

JG4_Helofly
06-24-2007, 01:55 PM
Seems like in future realistic simulations a fatigue model will be included http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is an interview with a developer of "Knights of the sky" http://www.simhq.com/_air9/air_290c.html

" Pilot Modeling

The ability to climb very high without the necessity of oxygen to keep the pilot conscious was great concern.

Q. How is hypoxia modeled?

A. We plan to model some aspects including ones that affect the pilot such as weariness with G-forces, wounds, hypoxia and maybe some other aspects."


I hope Oleg is watching his business rival http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

KrasniyYastreb
06-24-2007, 05:47 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">

1. Visualisation: We should be able to know how tired the pilot is when listening to the breath. If the pilot is out of breath we will hear it this way. Then a blured vision should be introduced when pulling high Gs like this RL pilot said.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Agreed, this seems reasonable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
2. The model itself: I suggest to start with fatigue from G force and maybe a slight decrease in pilot fitness when flying long distances; also the pilot should get tired when he trys to pull against high stick forces. For exemple, a 109 pilot would get tired faster due to the heavy elevator if used at high speed to it's maxium. Same goes for the ailerons of the spit and so on.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems strange that pilot strength would be affected by G-force exposure, because the muscles involved in resisting G-forces are not the same ones as those in pulling the stick. Rather I would expect to see decreased muscular strength towards the end of a long mission as a result of glycogen/blood sugar depletion and dehydration.

The problem is what to do with less easily defined effects like adrenaline. And no, I have never experienced fear or adrenaline effects in the game because, let's face it, I'm sitting in a rolling chair and sipping a soda, and the worst that can happen is I'll have to hit refly. Yet, the sympathetic nervous response has important physiological ramifications:
"When released into the bloodstream, epinephrine binds to multiple receptors and has numerous effects throughout the body. It increases heart rate and stroke volume, dilates the pupils, and constricts arterioles in the skin and gut while dilating arterioles in leg muscles. It elevates the blood sugar level by increasing catalysis of glycogen to glucose in the liver, and at the same time begins the breakdown of lipids in fat cells."

Clearly this would have an effect on the "strength" of the pilot. Someone who is flying along and suddenly hears warning calls on the radio and sees tracers flying past his cockpit you think will not be able to pull on the stick with great strength, in spite of fatigue?

Something to consider - that while taking such pains to model pilot fatigue we don't turn the virtual pilot into a 75 year old woman.

Blutarski2004
06-24-2007, 07:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KrasniyYastreb:
Rather I would expect to see decreased muscular strength towards the end of a long mission as a result of glycogen/blood sugar depletion and dehydration. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


..... Keepin in mind that there was nothing stopping a pilot from carrying water, or candy, or soda. Sakai carried soda pop with him in the cockpit (LONG trip from Rabaul to Guadalcanal).

lowfighter
06-24-2007, 10:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
Seems like in future realistic simulations a fatigue model will be included http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here is an interview with a developer of "Knights of the sky" http://www.simhq.com/_air9/air_290c.html

" Pilot Modeling

The ability to climb very high without the necessity of oxygen to keep the pilot conscious was great concern.

Q. How is hypoxia modeled?

A. We plan to model some aspects including ones that affect the pilot such as weariness with G-forces, wounds, hypoxia and maybe some other aspects."


I hope Oleg is watching his business rival http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/partyhat.gif

JG4_Helofly
06-25-2007, 10:43 AM
KrasniyYastreb, have you ever driven a kart? After some laps you feel how tiering it is if you go fast, but in a kart you don't even reach 1.5 G so imagine what it is like to pull a stick at 6 G.
It's extremly tiering. I am not a doctor, so I will not be able to tell you what happens in detail in the body, but I know that if you must move something at high G you will have to contract you muscles and with much more power than in level flight. Remember too that the pilot has problems with breathing in such manoeuvres so not enough oxygen can go in the muscles and not enough CO2 can go out. To prevent an "overheating" the body produce lactat which will prevent strong contractions so the pilot is not longer be able to pull the stick with the max force.

Manu-6S
06-25-2007, 02:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by JG4_Helofly:
KrasniyYastreb, have you ever driven a kart? After some laps you feel how tiering it is if you go fast, but in a kart you don't even reach 1.5 G so imagine what it is like to pull a stick at 6 G.
It's extremly tiering. I am not a doctor, so I will not be able to tell you what happens in detail in the body, but I know that if you must move something at high G you will have to contract you muscles and with much more power than in level flight. Remember too that the pilot has problems with breathing in such manoeuvres so not enough oxygen can go in the muscles and not enough CO2 can go out. To prevent an "overheating" the body produce lactat which will prevent strong contractions so the pilot is not longer be able to pull the stick with the max force. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

LEXX_Luthor
06-25-2007, 05:43 PM
KrasniyYastreb has a point if I read him/her correctly (hehe). Gee forces cause fatigue beyond muscle fatigue -- as somebody already poasted, nausea for one thing. Pilots often had severe muscle fatigue trying to control a twin engine aircraft that had one engine out. The only pilot accounts we read about this are from pilots who survived these conditions. And this has nothing to do with pulling gee in dogfight.

That's one additional reason why any attempt to isolate dogfight "gee" fatigue is cheating the Online community. Aviation Medicine is just not as simple as computer "dogfight" gamers want to think.

For those who believe what Sensai claims, recall Sensai poasted that the physical pilot is more important than flight models, unless I misread Sensai again (typical of me) -- but here we computer gamers only want simplified Fatigue Modelling of dogfight "gee" fatigue, with averaging of pilot skill and training, and nothing else modelled, but also claim to want "full realistic" flight models...

...but then, the Old Timer minority of Online players at this webboard were happy with WW2 aircraft "realistically" modeled with disabled trim controls in Forgotten Battles and then Pacific Fighters, and Oleg Maddox went along with this for most of the life of his sim...


Bf said it right...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">arcade </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Under the simplification that has developed here after Ratsack's quote has been ignored, I too would want a Realism option to turn dogfight gamer "gee" fatigue off. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JG4_Helofly
06-26-2007, 03:52 AM
LEXX, the pilot get tired from two things. One of them is G effect and the other is pulling a frozen stick at 600 kph. All other things like fear and such are simply too hard or impossible to model.
The two first points REALY the most important source of fatigue and will never make the game arcade. And I still don't know why you guys think that "G only" makes the game arcade.
Also I said before that a blured vision at high G should be modeled.

If "G only" is arcade for you then ask for removing all components of the sim because nothing is perfect and far from beeing completly modeled.

RegRag1977
06-26-2007, 06:03 AM
Tribute to all the armchair pilots, Red or Blue, no matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52E3cet54bA&NR=1

No, as we can see we really don't need pilot fatigue to be modelled..... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif