PDA

View Full Version : Health bar - a modest proposal



jimDG
08-13-2007, 04:04 AM
= A bar of pilot health/strength/tiredness; pull lots of Gs in 30 secs, and the bar decreases in half, meaning you can't pull more than 2 Gs over the course of the next 20 minutes until the health bar has risen to maximum again.

Makes for realistic flying - what vets seem to complain most in this sim is that lack of G effects on pilot modeling make for some very unrealistic flying.

I don't think this would be too difficult to implement in 4.09 (or 4.10). We already heave that effect modeled when the pilot is wounded. It only needs to be tied to the Gs as well..

jimDG
08-13-2007, 04:04 AM
= A bar of pilot health/strength/tiredness; pull lots of Gs in 30 secs, and the bar decreases in half, meaning you can't pull more than 2 Gs over the course of the next 20 minutes until the health bar has risen to maximum again.

Makes for realistic flying - what vets seem to complain most in this sim is that lack of G effects on pilot modeling make for some very unrealistic flying.

I don't think this would be too difficult to implement in 4.09 (or 4.10). We already heave that effect modeled when the pilot is wounded. It only needs to be tied to the Gs as well..

Capt.LoneRanger
08-13-2007, 05:27 AM
This is allready included in the game. If you blacked out, your chances for blacking out again rises over the next few seconds. Also, if you pull a certain ammount of G, where you don't blackout, you'll notice that you do after a few seconds due to that model.
It's not as dramatic as it could be though.

stanford-ukded
08-13-2007, 05:28 AM
I think you're going to clutching at straws with this one in IL2. I would have thought something like this will be implemented in BoB, however, as this often comes up as point of discussion on the forums.

jimDG
08-13-2007, 05:38 AM
Ok, make that "maneuver at 3-4 Gs for 5 minutes without blacking out, and you can't pull more than 2 Gs over the next half an hour. Move the stick a lot over 5 minutes, and you can't move it that much over the next half an hour"

grifter2u
08-13-2007, 10:00 AM
its a good idea, and i really hope they include a version of it in BoB. a number of people have been asking for this, but there is no sighn from oleg that he has noticed this request or understand its importance to SIMULATE flying in a combat situation.

the strength and endurance of the pilot should depend on the maneuvers he has been doing in the previous 10 or 20 minutes, and should gradually deplete his energy to represent fatigue.

a wounded pilot should also be limited in what maneuvers he can perform.

Capt.LoneRanger
08-14-2007, 05:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ALDEGA:
Sounds good, but it should also apply to that uber-robot AI http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I hate games where you have to deal with "realism" but the AI doesn't. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True. I always liked that LOMAC AI-helos hitting you at 33,000ft with a single HE-FFAR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

TgD Thunderbolt56
08-14-2007, 11:12 AM
Would just be something else I'd need to turn off.

Model the health (and diminishing of same) but I don't need to see it. Afterall, once my pilot starts burning like a roman candle, I barely have enough time to bail, much less check my health meter.


TB

bob669
08-15-2007, 01:10 PM
I think this is a bad idea. Besides, I don't know about anyone else, but my REAL ARM GETS TIRED after yanking and banking hard for a long time online. It doesn't really need simulation. Yeah I know the stick pressures and G forces were a lot more in real life but I think trying to model it through "fatigue" would make the game less fun, less like a flight sim and more like an FPS.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-15-2007, 02:03 PM
Health bar? Maybe for arcade mode.

DVX_immortal
08-15-2007, 02:12 PM
Human G EFFECT important for next simulator.

http://www.malignani.ud.it/WebEnis/aer/Me%20262/Data/Gi...a%20Aeronautica.html (http://www.malignani.ud.it/WebEnis/aer/Me%20262/Data/Ginnastica/Medicina%20Aeronautica.html)

Alloy007P
08-15-2007, 08:56 PM
Oleg and his team are curently on pluto so even to send him a radio message would take a few years.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2007, 03:30 AM
Hi

This sounds like a good idea at first- make it so that maneuvers have real penalty. I disagree with "health meters" in a simulation though.

The trouble is, g-effect meters don't actually introduce another level of realism. All it does it swap one unrealistic thing for another, new unrealistic thing- it's an absolute level playing field- it's arbitrary to the point that it's valueless except for novelty value. And the trouble with novelty is that it's not really valuable content

Everyone gets the same advantage and disadvantage- exactly as with the system this idea tries to "improve", because we have a system where you arbitrarily black- and red- out, now. It's not an improvement, it's just another way of adding a different arbitrary factor- that is, unless my real g tolerance and everyone else's is somehow modeled. Then that is 'realistic'

But then we get into the fact that some folks are not the type of physical specimen needed for being a combat pilot. And that will make complaints- unless you make it some time of RPG element, where your "Pilot Character" gets "skill points" he can "spend"

And at that point I will say "goodbye", because CFS3 tried this, with skills for eyesight, and g tolerance, and whatnot. And it sucked. May as well have power-ups at that point, for my money

carguy_
08-16-2007, 05:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bob669:
I think this is a bad idea. Besides, I don't know about anyone else, but my REAL ARM GETS TIRED after yanking and banking hard for a long time online. It doesn't really need simulation. Yeah I know the stick pressures and G forces were a lot more in real life but I think trying to model it through "fatigue" would make the game less fun, less like a flight sim and more like an FPS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don`t have information on what way the development is going but folks pretty much agreed that we need the fatigue modelled.In this simulation one can pull few high G maneuvers without any penalty whatsoever.So seeing a lone Spit making a loop after loop and few yoyos to dodge bullets is daily practice and is unrealistic.If you think it is less fun, deactivate it and problem fixed.Those who agree that making a set of hard maneuvers for an extended period of time sux, should have their option too.

I am against any bars.After some time you can feel how hard you can turn, how long you can stay in a burning cockpit.Fatigue we need, but modelled the same way as blackout and wounded features.

WhtBoy
08-16-2007, 08:03 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bob669:
I think this is a bad idea. Besides, I don't know about anyone else, but my REAL ARM GETS TIRED after yanking and banking hard for a long time online. It doesn't really need simulation. Yeah I know the stick pressures and G forces were a lot more in real life but I think trying to model it through "fatigue" would make the game less fun, less like a flight sim and more like an FPS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you are saying that your arm gets so tired that you can't pull the maximum amount of g-forces your energy state/aircraft combinatino allow, then I would bet a sizeable chunk of money that you are the ONLY one that has that problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
The trouble is, g-effect meters don't actually introduce another level of realism. All it does it swap one unrealistic thing for another, new unrealistic thing- it's an absolute level playing field- it's arbitrary to the point that it's valueless except for novelty value. And the trouble with novelty is that it's not really valuable content

Everyone gets the same advantage and disadvantage- exactly as with the system this idea tries to "improve", because we have a system where you arbitrarily black- and red- out, now. It's not an improvement, it's just another way of adding a different arbitrary factor- that is, unless my real g tolerance and everyone else's is somehow modeled. Then that is 'realistic' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B3, are you saying that black/red outs are unrealistic and should be removed b/c each individual player's G-tolerance is not modeled?



I used to be against fatigue modeling but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the concept since it is mentioned repeatedly by every pilot who has ever been in a high-g fight.

Yes it will be arbitrary and the same for every pilot, but, like the black/red outs so is the maximum amount of stick force available to us. There is NO WAY that I should be able to pull as many G's as Choctaw (me being a big fat pathetic pile of goo and all). Yet I can. It is true that the physical difference between the most fit pilot and the least fit pilot was not as great as the differences we have in virtual pilots, but, THE DIFFERENCE WAS STILL THERE and could be significant to the outcome of a fight.

I don't belive it's reasonable to exclude an effect b/c it is "arbitrarily" modeled. EVERYTHING is arbitrary when it comes to the virtual pilot including (but not limited to) physical frame and musculature, hearing, eyesight, and 3-D spatial awareness. That's just what you have to do in sims of this type.

Adding in a well modeled physical FACTOR (as opposed to mental - fear of dying, reluctance to kill, etc.) that clearly had a bearing on how actual pilots performed, even if it's arbitrary and the same for all virtual pilots, can only be an improvement.

There will, of course, have to be some kind of cue as to the state of such factors. In Operation Flashpoint as the virtual soldier becomes fatigued he begins to breathe harder, which the player can hear. Also, there is a bit of head bob with each breath that the player can see. Either/both of these is a good alternative to an actual meter.

--Outlaw.

lowfighter
08-16-2007, 08:10 AM
I don't know how much supports the community this idea of modelling g-fatigue. There have been a couple of pretty big threads about it but the number of people debating was not very large.
I hope it will be implemented some time. No need of a fatigue meter though...

carguy_
08-16-2007, 08:12 AM
I think cid means that it should be arbirtarily modelled but without the RPG element.

That means that there`s no such thing as pilot experience meaning you flew this number of missions so you get points to spend on upgrading your abilities such as fatigue,high G resistance, etc.

Same for all, not scalable, dependant only on the type of an airplane actially flown.

XyZspineZyX
08-16-2007, 10:34 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
The trouble is, g-effect meters don't actually introduce another level of realism. All it does it swap one unrealistic thing for another, new unrealistic thing- it's an absolute level playing field- it's arbitrary to the point that it's valueless except for novelty value. And the trouble with novelty is that it's not really valuable content

Everyone gets the same advantage and disadvantage- exactly as with the system this idea tries to "improve", because we have a system where you arbitrarily black- and red- out, now. It's not an improvement, it's just another way of adding a different arbitrary factor- that is, unless my real g tolerance and everyone else's is somehow modeled. Then that is 'realistic' </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

B3, are you saying that black/red outs are unrealistic and should be removed b/c each individual player's G-tolerance is not modeled?

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">No. I said that the way we do it now is arbitrary and unrealistic, and the way that has been proposed is equally as arbitrary and unrealistic</span>

I used to be against fatigue modeling but the more I thought about it, the more I liked the concept since it is mentioned repeatedly by every pilot who has ever been in a high-g fight.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Yes, sure. Of course it's mentioned. But you are overlooking that the mere fact of putting the factor in doesn't mean it's "realistically done". My real life G limits and yours are two different things. If I and you share the same modeled g-limit in game, what has this done but provide the very same arbitrary situation? You're raising the bar, but it's level across the board- everyone gets it the same- there is no 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' past the way the sim already handles this, right now. The sim already does an arbitrary g-effect</span>

Yes it will be arbitrary and the same for every pilot, but, like the black/red outs so is the maximum amount of stick force available to us. There is NO WAY that I should be able to pull as many G's as Choctaw (me being a big fat pathetic pile of goo and all). Yet I can. It is true that the physical difference between the most fit pilot and the least fit pilot was not as great as the differences we have in virtual pilots, but, THE DIFFERENCE WAS STILL THERE and could be significant to the outcome of a fight.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">So what's the solution here? A skill point system? Yuck. There will be things in a sim that we can't simulate. For instance: real training taught pilots to tighten their stomach muscles to forestall blackouts. So now I have something like the ability to press my "clench abs" key 10 times in a 5 minute stretch? Seems like Virtua Fighter to me</span>

I don't belive it's reasonable to exclude an effect b/c it is "arbitrarily" modeled. EVERYTHING is arbitrary when it comes to the virtual pilot including (but not limited to) physical frame and musculature, hearing, eyesight, and 3-D spatial awareness. That's just what you have to do in sims of this type.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">That's fine. I'm saying: don;t substitute one arbitrary system with abouther one that's just as arbitrary, simply because the new system is different</span>

Adding in a well modeled physical FACTOR (as opposed to mental - fear of dying, reluctance to kill, etc.) that clearly had a bearing on how actual pilots performed, even if it's arbitrary and the same for all virtual pilots, can only be an improvement.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">Yes. Well-modeled. I can only see an arbitrary system at best, or a skill point based system. I like neither</span>

There will, of course, have to be some kind of cue as to the state of such factors. In Operation Flashpoint as the virtual soldier becomes fatigued he begins to breathe harder, which the player can hear. Also, there is a bit of head bob with each breath that the player can see. Either/both of these is a good alternative to an actual meter.

<span class="ev_code_YELLOW">I feel OFP is a poor example. What did this add except a new, novel wrinkle, to the exact same old arbitrary system? You're just dressing it up </span>

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

lowfighter
08-16-2007, 11:38 AM
We'll just have to "fly" in a way closer to real life. Even with a uniform "Rambo-like" fatigue model, our manner of flying has to change a lot. I like that I'll not be able to cheat so much as I do now and I like the immersion factor added, just like with the blackouts.

WhtBoy
08-16-2007, 12:13 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this idea has anything to do with black/red outs.

It's a pilot FATIGUE model that lowers the amount of stick force that the virtual pilot can apply if he is tired.

From what I've read the game already models increased succeptability to black/red outs due to previous maneuvers so there is no need for changes there.

If this is not the case, I retract my previous post as it does not apply.

--Outlaw.

GvSAP_Dart
08-16-2007, 09:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're raising the bar, but it's level across the board- everyone gets it the same- there is no 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' past the way the sim already handles this, right now. The sim already does an arbitrary g-effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you've forgotten something critical: not everyone flys the same.

Pilot A and Pilot B are modelled with the same "Fatigue Model."

Pilot A likes to really throw his stick around, pull high-g manuevers, snap roll, wing over, split-S after split-S. Pilot A spends his "fatigue chips" like they're in endless supply.

Pilot B isn't falling for it. He takes a more conservative approach, flying through manuevers rather than forcing his plane to do things. He uses lag pursuits, looks, decides, THEN acts against pilot A.

Pilot A is fatigued much faster than Pilot B - not because they are modelled differently, but because Pilot A is flying like an idiot. In fact, after a short fight, Pilot A finds he's unable to evade Pilot B, and is shot down.

Pilot A then accuses Pilot B of cheating, and proclaims that the Fatigue Model is **** and the whole sim is biased against whichever nationality he was flying for at the time.

lowfighter
08-16-2007, 10:09 PM
Well pilot A would have 2 options.
1: Adapt and fly more or less like pilot B
2: Fly online on servers with fatigue off, or offline with fatigue off settings.

However not to forget that this is a game or a hobby and everyone has the right to enjoy it in his own way. No need to start another elitist program (like what we have already with full real vs arcade, noob planes versus expert planes etc)

M_Gunz
08-17-2007, 12:14 AM
The planes pretty much take care of it as they don't have the power to sustain high G's for
very long. That doesn't cover it all but it does put limits on time, you can't burn alt
forever and the one that flies the lower energy path will tend to keep his speed best.

Mostly though, IL2 does not have the data structure for these things.
Every how often is pilot state including indicator to be updated? Every time you change how
far the stick is positioned even a hair it must update as well as periodically -- every second
even without change to stick position? Did my pilot regain strength fast enough?
Is my seat better? Does the g-suit affect long term health state and who would believe?

Old programmers saying: every time you open a can of worms, it takes a bigger can to put them back.

lowfighter
08-17-2007, 01:57 AM
Just remembered a very thorough post of Sensei, better than anything else explaining why even a very simple fatigue would be much better than none.
Sensei writes:

"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."

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2007, 09:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe this idea has anything to do with black/red outs.

It's a pilot FATIGUE model that lowers the amount of stick force that the virtual pilot can apply if he is tired.

From what I've read the game already models increased succeptability to black/red outs due to previous maneuvers so there is no need for changes there.

If this is not the case, I retract my previous post as it does not apply.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you read some of the comments previous to my own, you will see that black and red outs were mentioned. In any6 case, black and red outs are part of the equation concerning g-forces in general, anyhow you slice it

The original post conained the idea that some sort of 'health/fatigue' bar gets reduce by half after some manuevring, and then you couldn't perform some actions for a set amount of time. I do not like the idea

Maybe you should describe the type of pilot fatigue model you have in mind to me.

I cannot conceive of one that is not part of one of the following two categories:

1) pre-determined (sets a "bar" [not a physical meter on-screen, I am referring to a set level] for all players that is the same)

2) skill point based

In either case, it's an arbitrary value of some sort. Skill based makes levels of equality that anyone can attain; everyone will just have the highest rating after a short time, and then we are back to everyone having the same penalties and advantages as everyone else- exactly like we have now

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2007, 10:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GvSAP_Dart:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">You're raising the bar, but it's level across the board- everyone gets it the same- there is no 'advantage' or 'disadvantage' past the way the sim already handles this, right now. The sim already does an arbitrary g-effect. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, you've forgotten something critical: not everyone flys the same.

Pilot A and Pilot B are modelled with the same "Fatigue Model."

Pilot A likes to really throw his stick around, pull high-g manuevers, snap roll, wing over, split-S after split-S. Pilot A spends his "fatigue chips" like they're in endless supply.

Pilot B isn't falling for it. He takes a more conservative approach, flying through manuevers rather than forcing his plane to do things. He uses lag pursuits, looks, decides, THEN acts against pilot A.

Pilot A is fatigued much faster than Pilot B - not because they are modelled differently, but because Pilot A is flying like an idiot. In fact, after a short fight, Pilot A finds he's unable to evade Pilot B, and is shot down.

Pilot A then accuses Pilot B of cheating, and proclaims that the Fatigue Model is **** and the whole sim is biased against whichever nationality he was flying for at the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Indeed I have not forgotten it; I just have not addressed a way to somehow resolve that incredibly complex issue. Mostly because I don't have a solution

What you are suggesting is that my own opinions are in error, since everyome flies differently

Although the notion that two people fly differently from one another is 100% true, I fail to see how this makes my opinions invalid. One does not disprove the other

You seem to be saying that I want everyone to be on some sort of level playing field, and for the effects to be the same for everyone

I have not said that. It has already been posted in this thread that this is my opinion. I have not said that, and I do not want everyone on a level playing field. That is not my opinion

I have not addressed any part of the situation in which various players do various things except to say that what we have now is arbitrary, and it effects all people the same way

There is no penalty for throwing the stick around that effects the pilot. That goes for everyone. Just because pilot A throws the stick around and doesn't get tired, that does not mean he automatically has an advantage. He's also wasting E, which you would probably agree is a disadvantage

And again, this is not to say that I propose making the effects "even". It is however what we have. Unless there is some sort of skill system, or somehow some type of dynamic (which I don't describe because I don't know how to do it) then no matter what we have, it will be arbitrary, by necessity

But I do not say: that's a good thing

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2007, 10:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:

Sensei writes:

"Modeling some sort of limiting factor of fatique--even simplistic linear exhaustion </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's interesting. A cumulative effect that declines after time is an interesting idea. maybe this is a compromise worth investigating

Deadmeat313
08-17-2007, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Just remembered a very thorough post of Sensei, better than anything else explaining why even a very simple fatigue would be much better than none.
Sensei writes:

"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." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant post Lowfighter - and by extension Sensei. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


T.

GvSAP_Dart
08-17-2007, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">What you are suggesting is that my own opinions are in error, since everyome flies differently </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Opinions are never wrong!

Settle down, it wasn't an attack, it was the suggestion that an evenly applied fatigue model shouldn't be applied equally to all that I disagreed with.

I understood your point very well.

I'd agree with your premise if everyone tired the same regardless of flight habits.

However, an even rate of fatigue for similar manuevers follows precisely the other assumptions within any given flight sim: equal inherent ability.

Every plane is the same in flight sims. There are no hangar queens, no hot rods, no quirks to each individual aircraft. There isn't any getting used to one's ride - if you've flown one, you've flown them all. Down to the tenth decimal of top speed, climb, and dive.

Of course this is a good thing, as we only fly the same plane for a very short time - tail number 675454 doesn't stay with us from mission to mission. We just slap the same skin on a different plane with each "fly."

You're correct that the herky-jerky guy will lose energy and put himself at a disadvantage. However, presently when he settles down, he regains energy and can - if he choses - go right back to high G turns.

With a fatigue model, our Pilot A finds himself in somewhat level flight unable to start back into high G turns. He's exhausted, and the best he can muster is half the stick's throw.

The accounts of WWII fighter pilots having to be physically removed from the cockpit on landing after engagements, too exhausted to pull themselves out of the seat, are legion.

On evenly applying a rate of fatigue for given moves, the system would be far more arbitrary and capricious if it wasn't consistent.

Either it would be a randomly selected rate, one modified by score (more points = less fatigue), or by your suggestion - a physical exam required before playing a simulation.

Since we're talking general fatigue and g-force tolerance, you may be suprised at who holds up very well and who doesn't.

I'm short and and lean, and while no longer anywhere near my fitness level as I was in my 20's, suprisingly hardy. My old out of shape body may be better suited for fighting off g-force and fatigue than a tall twenty-something with a lot of muscle body mass.

When the bald guy that smokes a pack a day, due to his "g-ticket" he submitted to the distributors of the sim takes those turns better than you, will you cry foul? What if the guy with the gut figures out a way to hold that belly in, and with it blood flow to his upper body?

We don't do studies like that - they work with fighter pilot material, not middle aged fat guys with glasses. What if it turns out that with a little training, a belly actually helps?

XyZspineZyX
08-17-2007, 06:53 PM
"Settle down"?

Nowhere in my post did I over-react or act inappropriately. I still fail to see how your example excludes my thoughts on the issue, regardless of how you reiterate it

Your point does have merit; I just cannot see how this applies to my statement that these are simply arbitrary things unless some, as-yet-unexplained dynamic system takes over. The idea of a cumulative effect seems like the nearest compromise

WhtBoy
08-17-2007, 07:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That's interesting. A cumulative effect that declines after time is an interesting idea. maybe this is a compromise worth investigating </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's how I've always interpreted pilot fatigue would be modeled (it's come up several times in the past and a cumulative effect decreasing with time has always been the way it was presented). I didn't interpret the original posters, "...and the bar decreases in half..." as literally as you did, which would be a bad idea indeed!

--Outlaw.

lowfighter
08-17-2007, 09:35 PM
Yes, this was the way people suggested in past threads discussing G-force fatigue modelling. And it makes sense. Maybe I'll find later some other good posts in earlier threads suggesting improved variants of this basic modelling idea...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WhtBoy:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by BBB462cid:
That's interesting. A cumulative effect that declines after time is an interesting idea. maybe this is a compromise worth investigating </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's how I've always interpreted pilot fatigue would be modeled (it's come up several times in the past and a cumulative effect decreasing with time has always been the way it was presented). I didn't interpret the original posters, "...and the bar decreases in half..." as literally as you did, which would be a bad idea indeed!

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Von_Rat
08-18-2007, 12:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Deadmeat313:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Just remembered a very thorough post of Sensei, better than anything else explaining why even a very simple fatigue would be much better than none.
Sensei writes:

"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." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Brilliant post Lowfighter - and by extension Sensei. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


T. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes this post says it all.

some sort of fatigue modeling is needed.

LEXX_Luthor
08-20-2007, 01:13 AM
Pure 'dogfight' gee-fatigue simulates nothing unless other aspects of aviation medicine are also modelled, such as flying long hours in turbulent weather (related to gee effects), sub-freezing temperatures, vibrations, noise, UV blindness, oxygen loss, etc..., etc,..., endless list.

Fatigue experiences that effected WW2 combat pilots are largely unknown to the post-modern environmentally shielded pilot flying Su-27 (NATO codename Flaker) or F-16 (NATO codename Falcon) -- except gee-fatigue. The engineers haven't yet found a way to fully cushion the post-modern superjet combat pilot from gee effects.

M_Gunz
08-20-2007, 02:40 AM
It would be simple code to make pilot strength lessen with G's. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif
Perhaps at 1 G could be more strength and at 6 G's only half? Muhuhahahahaha!

WhtBoy
08-21-2007, 08:03 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:
Pure 'dogfight' gee-fatigue simulates nothing unless other aspects of aviation medicine are also modelled, such as flying long hours in turbulent weather (related to gee effects), sub-freezing temperatures, vibrations, noise, UV blindness, oxygen loss, etc..., etc,..., endless list.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Similarly, simulating lift simulates nothing unless all other forces all the way down to the molecular level are also taken into account. I agree with Lexx, UBI should cancel the SOW project from their side immediately and Oleg should do the same. He would then have time to do something other than producing useless software.

--Outlaw.

LEXX_Luthor
08-21-2007, 11:24 AM
WhtBoy:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Similarly, simulating lift simulates nothing unless all other forces all the way down to the <span class="ev_code_yellow">molecular level</span> are also taken into account. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rather than appeal to the infinitesimal small "detail" as analogy, a better way was covered in the last Pilot Stamina thread: Modelling pure dogfight gee fatigue without other aspects of aviation medicine would be like flight models that do nothing more than simulate lift. ie...modelling lift with no modelling of engine thrust, no drag, etc...

Modelling aspects of aviation medicine beyond the basic dogfight gee fatigue brings into gameplay the physical effects that compromised combat effectivness of WW2 pilots, much like modelling flight physics such as engine thrust and drag brings into the FMs more than just the basic lift.

grifter2u
08-21-2007, 08:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Just remembered a very thorough post of Sensei, better than anything else explaining why even a very simple fatigue would be much better than none.
Sensei writes:

"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." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

that sums up the argument very well
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

JimmyBlonde
08-22-2007, 02:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Capt.LoneRanger:


True. I always liked that LOMAC AI-helos hitting you at 33,000ft with a single HE-FFAR. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pfft!

Von_Rat
08-22-2007, 04:47 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by LEXX_Luthor:
Pure 'dogfight' gee-fatigue simulates nothing unless other aspects of aviation medicine are also modelled, such as flying long hours in turbulent weather (related to gee effects), sub-freezing temperatures, vibrations, noise, UV blindness, oxygen loss, etc..., etc,..., endless list.

QUOTE]


there is going to be no aspect of any flight sim, in the forseeable future, that is going to be modeled in the detail thats your insisting pilot fatiuge be modeled. not the FM, DM, engine mangment, or any other aspect is going to modeled to the level of detail that your insisting on.

seems to me your arguement is just a red herring because you want to be able to tnb with no ill effects. thats fine with me, im sure that it will be a switchable option that you can disable.

LEXX_Luthor
08-22-2007, 05:12 AM
Von_Rat:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">there is going to be no aspect of any flight sim, that in the forseeable future thats going to be modeled in the detail thats your insisting pilot fatiuge be modeled. not the FM, DM, engine mangment, or any other aspect is ever going to modeled the way your insisting fatiuge should be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
The "detail" you claim we want is not what's needed, but we are asking for basic modelling of historically crucial features of aviation medicine beyond the simple dogfight shooter gee fatigue. Taking the FM example again -- asking for even a simple modelling of engine thrust beyond the basic lift modelling is not asking for too much "detail." Indeed, I would imagine that the most simple lite sims have engine thrust or power modelling along with other aspects of flight physics.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">seems to me your arguement is just a red herring because you want to be able to tnb with no ill effects. thats fine with me, im sure that it will be a switchable option that you can disable. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif From Siemens Shuckert D-III to MiG-25, I prefer high speed and fast climbing aircraft (Japan's best shot at a war winning aircraft would have been the high speed and fast climbing Ki-44). If you would like to learn more about military aviation, and how to simulate air warfare, including the important aspects of aviation medicine that effected pilots in combat, we can talk more here.

Bremspropeller
08-22-2007, 05:28 AM
The new Libelle (dragonfly) g-suit allows you to pull 9Gs without needing to g-strain.
That was tested multiple times in the german high-g centrifuge (up to 11Gs) at Königsbrück.

The pilots could easily talk (without grunting) while pulling 9Gs for quite some time.
The only problem was their feet would swell and hurt afterwards.

That problem gets fixed by taking tighter shoes and socks.

The Libelle-suit is a great leap forward. It was initially designed by the Swiss and was incorporated into Luftwaffe service since the first Typhoons arrived.

LEXX_Luthor
08-22-2007, 06:07 AM
Hey, that is neat. You see that in old sci-fi -- immersion in liquid.

LIBELLE G-Multiplus® The Next Generation of Aircrew G Protection ~&gt; http://www.autofluglibelle.com/html/libelle.html

My fave novel is Joe Haldeman's (a great anti-war combat vet author) Forever War, where people are pumped full of liquids during automated high gee spaceship manuevers. That's well beyond this application however, but still...

Von_Rat
08-22-2007, 06:15 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The "detail" you claim we want is not what's needed, but we are asking for basic modelling of historically crucial features of aviation medicine beyond the simple dogfight shooter gee fatigue. . </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


you said, and i qoute,,

"sub-freezing temperatures, vibrations, noise, UV blindness, oxygen loss, etc..., etc,..., endless list."

by you adding that "endless list" at the end, you made it very clear that your goal was to set the bar so hi it could not possiably be reached.

all of us here would love to have those aspects modeled, but if they cant be, we will glady take what we can get. every little bit helps, not hurts as you try to imply.

its not a, all or nothing, situation.

Sturm_Williger
08-22-2007, 06:53 AM
I must go with VonRat here - some form of fatigue modelling would be better than none.

The "cumulative effect that declines over time" proposed by Sensei is probably the best that we can hope to have modelled and I for one would welcome it wholeheartedly. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-22-2007, 08:30 AM
Von_Rat:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">by you adding that "endless list" at the end, you made it very clear that your goal was to set the bar so hi it could not possiably be reached. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Then I made an error in clarity. All combat sim developers create flight models -- those with more resources can include more FM (or DM) features than others. As with flight model features, the aviation medicine feature list is probably endless, and we do what we can. I hope this is more clear. We forgot what our favorite quoted "pilot" of the day WWSensai poasted in the last Pilot Stamina thread -- modelling pilot fatigue, or at least pilot gee fatigue, is more important than flight modelling, damage modelling, and weapon modelling all put together -- or something like that. Similarly, other causes of pilot fatigue were pehaps more important, some less important, than just dogfight gee fatigue alone...at least for WW2 combat in WW2 aircraft with low time poorly trained young pilots, not experienced post-modern all digital superjet combat with well trained professional life long pilots.

Two examples of incomplete feature list:

(1) The StrikeFighters jetsim FMs have little torque available for 3rd Party prop aircraft. But then, FB/PF is famous for weak torque modelling in a WW2 sim.

(2) StrikeFighers has never had any aircraft trim modelled. Oddly, for most of the life of FB/PF, there was no functional trim controls in the WW2 aircraft flight modelling at the approval of a minority of Online play customers, as Oleg crippled his own flight models in an attempt at preventing elevator slider trim cheating during Online gameplay.

Perhaps, FB/PF is "sim lite." http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Von_Rat
08-22-2007, 09:05 AM
from what i understand, oleg is going to have some form of pilot fatigue in bob.

hopfully it will include not only g fatigue but also some of your other suggestions. i for one will take every little bit of realism he can give us.

Sturm_Williger
08-22-2007, 09:11 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:
We forgot what our favorite quoted "pilot" of the day WWSensai poasted in the last Pilot Stamina thread -- modelling pilot fatigue, or at least pilot gee fatigue, is more important than flight modelling, damage modelling, and weapon modelling all put together -- or something like that. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fine, but that's not what THIS thread is saying. We are not saying that it should be more important than those 3 modelling features, just that some form ( even a simple form ) of pilot fatigue modelling would be good ( for BoB, since for IL2 is a totally unrealistic expectation )

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Similarly, other causes of pilot fatigue were pehaps more important, some less important, than just dogfight gee fatigue alone...at least for WW2 combat in WW2 aircraft ... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

With respect, while your statement is true, I submit that given the flight times and combat nature of a/the sim, dogfight gee fatigue is the most likely to be relevant.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

LEXX_Luthor
08-22-2007, 09:44 AM
Sturm:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With respect, while your statement is true, I submit that given the flight times and combat nature of a/the sim, dogfight gee fatigue is the most likely to be relevant.
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for the support.

You are correct. The "dogfight" could assume one or both sides flew for many hours in harsh conditions. I wonder if Saburo and friends got bounced out of the sun near Guadacanal because of the long and tiring flight from Rabaul. Saburo does not normally get bounced.

If we are assuming the sim simulates WW2 by both sides spawning 50km from each other's bases, then we can weed out many aspects of aviation medicine, while leaving dogfight gee fatigue and perhaps oxygen deprivation as at least two remaining features, although climbing to 5km altitude over 25km may be an issue. However, this by could be called Arcade gameplay, and has little to do with simulating WW2 air combat. ie...if we expect some TnB opponent to suffer from dogfight gee fatigue, and we are assumed to be flying a long escort mission, we should suffer from other equally important causes of pilot fatigue.

Granted, all added fun gameplay features are wellcome -- For extended multiple flight mission gameruns in Offline play, I'd love to use a simple and rather arcadish player ReFuel/ReArm even though the AI can't (that would require massive new AI programming effort). The perception of arcadish dogfight gee fatigue I believe is related to why many poast in the various Pilot Stamina threads asking for a "realistic" option of turning OFF this limited form of pilot fatigue. The modelling of dogfight gee fatigue alone fails to model pilot fatigue as experienced during WW2 air warfare.

DKoor
08-22-2007, 10:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jimDG:
= A bar of pilot health/strength/tiredness; pull lots of Gs in 30 secs, and the bar decreases in half, meaning you can't pull more than 2 Gs over the course of the next 20 minutes until the health bar has risen to maximum again.

Makes for realistic flying - what vets seem to complain most in this sim is that lack of G effects on pilot modeling make for some very unrealistic flying.

I don't think this would be too difficult to implement in 4.09 (or 4.10). We already heave that effect modeled when the pilot is wounded. It only needs to be tied to the Gs as well.. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Naturally, I support this idea.

Doing that for quite a while now.........