View Full Version : Negative G solution

03-03-2006, 09:13 PM
I find the strong negative G manuevers of both human and AI to be totally unrealistic.

While I don't know what to do about the AI; I do have a suggestion on the human side of it...

My suggestion would be to "wound" the pilot for negative G dives exceeding a certain limit or duration...say 2 or 3 neg G's...not sure what the correct amount would be.

The net effect of this wounding would be the "seeing red" and reduced control authority. In this way, human pilots would have to manage these manuevers or leave themselves very vulnerable....maybe they should wear off for a bit, then maybe not...

I would certainly be in favor or a realistic type penalty for pulling manuevers that, in real life, were not practical nor utilized.

03-03-2006, 09:22 PM
I guess it would depend on how long the -ve g dive was held for...many 109 pilots used this tactic to evade spits during the BOB. This was because the 109's engine was/is inverted and with fuel injection it could handle -ve g dives without worrying about fuel loss to the cylinders. If the spit pilot wanted to follow the 109 he had to role inverted first losing valuable seconds.

03-03-2006, 10:40 PM
I think Mousers made a really good point. By doing excessive G or neg G moves, the screen should be a bit reddened/blackened due to exhaustion. Like being wounded, the pilot can't do manouvers as well.

Top stuff Mouser.

03-03-2006, 10:50 PM
Redout more than a few split seconds should last the rest of the sortie, and introduce some visual impairments that make it not worth the risk of doing on a regular basis. It's an incredibly painful and debilitating thing to suffer (having your eyeballs' blood vessels bursting), and one that a pilot would gladly do to save his life...but he wouldn't use it as "his favorite maneuver".

03-04-2006, 12:19 AM
I would often use neg G turns..so often, in fact, many ppl accuse me of warping, they cant comprehend seeing my 190 slide over like that, showing its belly http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

i found 190s and jugs to do neg G best

however, 404 has curtailed my activities in this regard, as they are now not nearly as responsive as they used to be

for the best, anyow, as i feel that if its unrealistic to have the plane able to do what they COULD, then at least the unresponsivness to neg G planes have in 404 at least could represent a limiting human factor