View Full Version : POLL - Pilot limitations - please model ???

09-06-2006, 02:51 PM
Ok, as it stands we can do multiple things at the same (or virtually) the same time. Using a HOTAS one can raise flap / gear, increase throttle, trim plane, close/open radiator etc... all in a matter of 1 to 2 seconde..
This is wrong IMO.

What you guys think ???

09-06-2006, 03:08 PM
I think certain functions should be delayed but other controls should be responsive. Trim should be delayed at high speed...while responsive at slow speed. But radiator flaps and the stick itself should essentially function as is right now.

I'm all for adding some extra effects...but not too many. It makes things less accessible when its not immediately clear why.

I'd like to see a more nuanced approach on the actual aircraft in a high G or negative G situation than is right now. At the moment you can fly upside down with a negative G push for as long as you have fuel. In reality it should only be several seconds before the oil stops flowing.

09-06-2006, 03:17 PM
It's a good basic idea: but it'd take some real time and study to work out which conditions cause which commands to be "delayed", by how much, and for how long.

09-06-2006, 03:17 PM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
I think certain functions should be delayed but other controls should be responsive. Trim should be delayed at high speed...while responsive at slow speed. But radiator flaps and the stick itself should essentially function as is right now.

I'd like to see a more nuanced approach on the actual aircraft in a high G or negative G situation than is right now. At the moment you can fly upside down with a negative G push for as long as you have fuel. In reality it should only be several seconds before the oil stops flowing.

You are right engine (other that radial) were not built for flying upside down for to long. As for using multiple commands its more to simulate that a pilot usuallu as only one free hand to do all that he needs to do... and under Hi-Gs he most probably as 2 hands on the stick so no free hands to wander about...

09-06-2006, 03:20 PM
(other) -- Offer a Poll on something that will attract New customers into purchasing, and keep playing, combat flight sims. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/heart.gif

09-06-2006, 03:25 PM
Did I get something wrong... I though the objective was to find ways to improve our experience... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

09-06-2006, 03:31 PM
A good idea. But the pilot should also be handycaped by pilot fatigue like it was discussed in the pilot restiction topic.

The basis model should be like this: All pilots are the same. They get tired after pulling high g manoeuvres and can not pull the stick with full power after some extrem manoeuvres.

Just an exemple of the current situation: You fly an old g6 version and red has la5F. A very historical correct situation. In il2 you have no chance to survive because the la is better in every aspect. If the pilot would become tired after high g manoeuvres you would be able to do more with your g6 if you do realistic normal evasive manoeuvres. The la would not longer be able to do give 100% of it's potential.

This would make combat much more realistic than it's now. Now, If you have the plane which is better you have already won the fight if the other pilot is not a very good one.

Also we would not need balancing in the FM because the performance of the different planes would not be the only think which does matter.

It would be a great step forward to increase realism of the fights and we would probably see less whining topics about plane performances because it would not longer be the only factor in the fight.

09-06-2006, 03:32 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif We improve the experience ourselves.

To model what you are asking, we use the Keyboard as cockpit interface, and a simple joystick without all the Fancy Buttons. That's what I do. My olde 50 kilogram IBM keyboard feels like it would be as massive as the original P-47 cockpit instrument panel.

...and we save ALOT of money by ignoring those "SuperHotas" space-fighter joysticks. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the other hand, if you are asking for computer hardware "balance" among all players in Competitive Online Dogfight gameplay, you are asking the Developer to spend his/her development resources for no (Zero) return on investment in sales, unless the Developer can make Pay-To-Play work for a dedicated Online Fighter Pilot Simulator.

09-06-2006, 03:41 PM
Well you see not all aircraft are the same.

While I agree with you, in some planes, FW-190 for example, most of the stuff, the pilot has to do during combat, is either automatic or on stick and throttle. The flaps are electric and close to the throttle, so is the trim. The mixture radiator flaps, prop pitch, supercharger gear switching, are all automatic. This combined with the light controls at all speeds. In this aircraft you don't need two hands to maneuver at high speed. This would give it a huge (historical) advantage over other planes.
Some other aircraft are the opposite. All Russian planes required a huge part of the pilot's attention only to fly the plane. If you wanted to dive you had to push a lot of levers and knobs. In order to be effective in combat you had to be first a very good pilot. You had to learn the plane first and then (if you survive), you would start to be effective as a fighter pilot.

This area of WW2 aircraft is lousy modeled in the game since most planes will still fly good no mater if you use complex engine management or not. it's true, in some planes you shouldn't be able to control so many things at once, but is too hard to find documentation for every aircraft in the game. Not all were the same, so you should not apply the same rules to all of them.
I think is a bit too much to expect from a game with two hundred aircraft.

09-06-2006, 03:55 PM
Good points Jaws, and far better said than I can say it.

To be honest, Complex Engine Management is already approximated across all aircraft, so I guess Complex Pilot Managment (CPM) could be approximated roughly across all aircraft also, and it could be an interesting mix with Aviation Medicine modelling -- that's what some Online BnZ players artificially restrict to defining as "Online TnB pilot fatigue." (http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

But there's a difference. Unlike the technical CEM, the physiological CPM is not generally a core interest in people who like to read up and then go sim Ye Olde Warbirds, and certainly of little benefit to the larger (Offline play) Air War simulation far beyond the cockpit. So I don't think resources spent on CPM would work to attract *new* people into the sim and keep them playing. For a dedicated hardcore Online Pilot Simulation, that's another story and could work well indeed as a server option.

09-06-2006, 04:30 PM
Well, I voted "other". The thing with inputs is:

1. While more difficult in certain situations like high G maneouvers, they are still possible. There are numerous pilot accounts of using trim to recover from a high-G dive so it is certainly not unheard of.

2. "Poking around the cockpit" in search of a lever/button may be difficult for a novice, but not necessarily for a trained pilot. Much like driving a car, you get used to doing what initially seemed difficult.

3. There are significant variations from plane to plane which are not easily quantifiable. e.g. the 109's cramped cockpit on the one hand presents an obstruction to the pilot with regard to lateral movement, however, the reclined seat/confined space could arguably allow for more bracing particularly for longitudinal inputs. i.e. it would be very difficult to model accurately and a one-size fits all solution would not be realistic.

4. Feedbacks that you would get from the real thing aren't available. e.g. if you lift one hand off the stick while in a high G maneouver, in the real plane you'd get the stick forces to tell you that your pull is decreasing, there is no analog on the joystick. Similarly, on the real plane you trim by feeling stick pressure, an arbitrarily delayed trim hardly simulates that since the joystick does not give you any feedback.

That does not mean that pilot physical limitations should not be modelled at all. I would particularly love to see more cumulative G-effects including the pilot simply getting tired resulting in a tad more sluggish response overall or a reduction in the availalble force he can apply on the stick or rudder pedals. Currently, we can sustain ~5G's in this sim indefinitely with no adverse effects when in reality G-LOC is not an all or nothing proposition. Not only are there intermediate levels of impairment, their onset depends on how long the G's are sustained as well as how high they are.

The caveat is that some concessions have to be made wrt some other aspects (such as two-handed vs. one-handed stick inputs) due to the limitations of the simming environment.

09-06-2006, 04:34 PM
i) As Jaws points out, aeroplanes are different. That goes double for warbirds. Heck if you fly a Stearman from the front seat you'll find that the carb heat is behind your right elbow. That takes a bit of getting used to!

ii) Not all pilots are equal either. Some people have faster hands than others. Experienced pilots can run through procedures probably 5x faster than me IRL.

As such any restriction is likely to be somewhat arbitrary. The only way to accurately simulate cockpit workload is to build a cockpit with all the right switches in all the right places.

I've got a few types in my logbook, and I can tell you that the strangest things can cause trouble.

For example, in the CAP10B, the throttle handle is slightly too close to the panel, so that if you hold it your fingers will hit the panel before you reach full throttle. So you've got to take your fingers out and push with the palm of your hand. The first time I took off I didn't get to full power until after I was in the air!

The flap handle is in the middle of the cockpit, so you've got to change hands to work the flaps. The action is just like the handbrake in a car, but you've got to move the handle slightly too far, so you have to raise the last few degrees of flap with wrist action. Which is interesting whilst you're flying left handed. Thankfully the throttle doesn't close itself under the influence of vibration (which of course it does in the Cessna 150...).

After an hour or two you get used to it, and changing hands on climbout becomes automatic.

You aren't ever going to simulate that kind of thing accurately in a PC game, so perhaps its best not to try.

09-06-2006, 04:42 PM
If we implemented this, as many others point out, we would have to model it differently for every aircraft. Levers and switches are all in different spots, and some are more accessible than others, while a good idea, I believe it would be a waste of time to develop it.

09-06-2006, 05:16 PM
G suits for p-51 piolets would add some realism http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

09-06-2006, 07:10 PM
g suit for spitfire pilots?

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

09-07-2006, 03:41 AM
So the time it takes me to input a command must be DOUBLED as I wait for the virtual pilot to fulfil the same function I just did? That sounds highly illogical.

Pilot fatigue is already modelled in each of us. Get two online players in an extended fight. Each of you will tire in your own unique way as the engagement progresses.

Fatigue in AI airmen is a good idea however. But doubling up on such things with player controlled aircraft is a flawed idea I think.

Blackouts, oxygen starvation, communications failure or wounding are all fair game for simulation though http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

09-07-2006, 03:58 AM
Well, a fatigue scale could be applied to all pilots in generally the same way across the board.
As you fly, and pull G's the response time on the controls increases in response, yet the "fatigue meter" doesn't quite fill back up each time.
Soon it starts taking a noticable amount of time before things happen.

Then each Aircraft could have its own "delay overlay" depending on the layout of the controls, to simulate having to move around from switch to wheel to dial.

Of course Now we could go all out and "Design" our own Pilots with attributes that affect the pilot fatigue meter.....

Then the can add spells, and dragons and we can name our pilots names like Gandalf the Luftwhiner or SpitHaxxor the Mighty and shoot each other down with our fireballs +2
and say things like
" I smite thee with my Spitfire of Invincability."

sorry I'm rambling now, but I do fear how far this could go.

09-07-2006, 09:12 AM
All good points guys... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif but my idea was to limit obvious flaws like in a spit IXe... increasing throttle... triming full nose up... and lowering flap... to pull out of a steap low altitude dive (trimming even when blacked out!!!)... and by doing so limiting the so called TRIM cheat used by many...

I understand that WWII pilots were different and that their aptitude varied... but still their hands COULD NOT have been at two place at once... so some planes could have a larger handicap than others ??? And the two hands on stick thing should not change the force applied to the stick (although illogicla) because that would cause a sudden increase in force that current stick setup can not cope with... but should simulate the fact that the second hand is not available to do other things... Just a tough...

BTW sorry for the english guys I'm French http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Also I'm all for a sort of pilot fatigue being modelled... but if that is done I beleive we should have some sort of "Stamina Indicator" so that we can have a general idea of our pilot "State"... because we would undoubtfully know our own fatigue state if we were actually flying the thing.... kind of like a teamspeak overlay thing that one could desable like the speed bar... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

09-07-2006, 09:38 AM
My iea is soemthing less automated. You have a given force limit to the controls. If you press a given button, and only while it is pressed, you go to 2 hands mode and have more force but no other controls.

THen the pilots would be always exactly aware of its state (i hate automatic thigns engaging and de enganging all by themselves exactly when I don't want them).

09-07-2006, 09:47 AM
I did 7 (other)

There are some good ideas here above, but what I think is missing is G effects. Red out/black out ok. I think FFB sticks should be a little closer then they currently are in use of force.

If you don't have a full HOTAS set up then naturally you may be scrambling for keyboard shortcuts. That'd be me for now but imagine HOTAS (as mentioned) being a real ergonomic advantage that would surpass IRL.

09-07-2006, 02:34 PM
OldMan, that sounds workable in theory, but what's to prevent the virtual pilot from macro-ing that button to his HOTAS? Unless you are saying that whilst said button is depressed other inputs like trim/flaps/throttle/mixture/prop-pitch are not available?

I understand people's concern about how relatively easy it is to apply these secondary inputs even whilst flying b@lls-to-the-wall. I'd just like to say: careful what you wish for or we could get half-arsed solutions like sloth-trim. The latter actually impeded proper use of trim without addressing the fabled bat-turns it was meant for.

09-07-2006, 07:24 PM
It seems to me that the problem of modelling pilot fatigue, or the ergonomic problems of operating several controls at once is only going to favor the high-priced HOTAS/TIR bigscreen monitor owner even more than they already are.

Human beings vary greatly in their basic strength and endurance (believe me, those two virtues are very different in their utility in what is primarily a physical contest), and aircraft vary as well in how easily their combat strengths and virtues could be applied.

Should Oleg try to model the differences between individuals or aircraft? How can we be sure that he can get close to a realistic result, when the current in-game P-38L (ahistorically limited as it is in some respects) is a better choice for most combat scenarios than the Mustang, which was the reverse of the real thing?

I think it's better not to model things we can't measure than to imperfectly model them.