super sudden blackout instead of gradual blackout (8.5g)... (initial report january)

multiplayer-issue since january! (initial report, was wrong choice of subforum it appears? https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=261057)

ED, please finally make the "g-blackout effect" consistent across all your fighter-aircraft!

Multiplayer trackfile: https://ufile.io/cfpb1yix (if invalid link, backup: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1LTlhmz_D6g4CEl1M6BRgSpVlSwLbNbIY)

MiG-29S in the 2nd half of video as comparison... (click on below picture for the video. Then unmute the video in bottom right.)

completely different set of circumstances. Just like the last time you posted this. It's totally dependent on how many sustained Gs you are experiencing.

In the first you were doing a split S while flying at 535 knots in the Viper and the second is the mig29 doing a steep bank turn.

Dagger you are totally wrong on this one, both videos show exactly that max. 8.5 G were encountered. result = we require ED to fix the F-16 blackout animation to be consistent with MiG-29S ASAP.

Dagger you are totally wrong on this one, both videos show exactly that max. 8.5 G were encountered. result = we require ED to fix the F-16 blackout animation to be consistent with MiG-29S ASAP.

One maneuver is producing positive Gs while the other producing negative Gs.

Now provide a another video doing the same maneuver at the exact same speed.

Again there is nothing wrong with G effects in game.

There's A LOT wrong with g-tolerance in the game, I think this is widely understood and is acknowledged by ED. The "instant gloc" bug has been around for a long time and besides that, the average F-16 pilot doesn't black out after 2 literal seconds at 9 g.

EDIT: I see 8.5 g in both F-16 and Mig-29 in the video, where's the negative g you're talking about? Plus, speed ha NOTHING to do with blacking out, g is the only measurement of y-axis acceleration whether you are doing 300 kts or Mach 5.

There's A LOT wrong with g-tolerance in the game, I think this is widely understood and is acknowledged by ED. The "instant gloc" bug has been around for a long time and besides that, the average F-16 pilot doesn't black out after 2 literal seconds at 9 g.

 

EDIT: I see 8.5 g in both F-16 and Mig-29 in the video, where's the negative g you're talking about? Plus, speed ha NOTHING to do with blacking out, g is the only measurement of y-axis acceleration whether you are doing 300 kts or Mach 5.

You might have misunderstood what I meant. speed will dramatically increase the G forces on a maneuver.

Again you cannot compare two different maneuvers at different speeds.

A split S will produce negative Gs (which is MUCH harder on the body), while a hard bank turn will produce positive Gs)

The one thing this game does not really model is redouts under negative Gs. It uses the same GLOC effects (greyout, tunnel vision, blackout) as positive G effects.

actually I should correct myself. The split S is actually a "complicated" maneuver when it comes to G force acceleration. because you start off inverted it produces positive Gs.

Someone more knowledgeable would be in a better position to explain the rest of the acceleration forces throughout the maneuver. (I believe it it goes from longitudinal to lateral back to longitudinal )

The point is, you can't compare 2 different airframes doing two different maneuvers.

DanielNL try and redo your test with both jets doing hard sustained turns at the same speed. If anything I would bet that FC3 jets are actually too forgiving than the fullsim jets.

My God, the corroborations some in this community go through when thinking about some stuff...

g force is pretty simple actually: there's a g-meter that measures g-force on the vertical axis, whcih is by and large the only one that counts when it comes to affecting a pilot during a maneuver. Lateral and longitudinal accelerations don't displace the blood in your body in a way that can make you unconscious (otherwise Formula 1 drivers would be wearing g-suits...).

Split S, loop, turn, whatever. As long as the g-meter reads 8, it means 8. There are no differences between 8 g in a split-s or 8g in a loop or whatever other maneuver.

In a split S you experience positive g as soon as you pull, which is what happens in the video.

Dagger you are totally wrong on this one, both videos show exactly that max. 8.5 G were encountered. result = we require ED to fix the F-16 blackout animation to be consistent with MiG-29S ASAP.

G onset is different for every aircraft in real life. How many degrees is the MiG-29 seat tilted to help the pilot cope with Gee? Did the pilots do Gee warmups beforehand?

Demanding the same one size fits all Gee effect across all aircraft is not the solution.

How many degrees is the MiG-29 seat tilted to help the pilot cope with Gee?

As far as we know not as much as in the F-16...

The F-16's ACES II zero/zero ejection seat is reclined at an unusual tilt-back angle of 30° source

Pilot seated on a 10º inclined Zveda K-36DM/2-06 zero/zero ejection seat source

Demanding the same one size fits all Gee effect across all aircraft is not the solution.

Of course not, but afaik a 30° inclined pilot will definitely handle 8.5g better than a 10° inclined pilot, not worse, right?

Sorry but I disagree a split S high speed maneuver has millisecond changes in G forces throughout the maneuver compared to a hard bank turn at the same speed .

So if you are going to compare you need to reproduce the same maneuver.

"Lateral and longitudinal accelerations don't displace the blood in your body in a way that can make you unconscious (otherwise Formula 1 drivers would be wearing g-suits...)."

That's completely wrong. the F1 car cannot produce the same Gs because of its top speed and acceleration compared to say a top fuel dragster which can produce 5.3Gs on acceleration to 60mph.

Anyways the point is if you want to compare blackout, you need to produce a video with the same maneuver.

But I also doubt that FC3 a/c are more realistic than fullsim jets.

G onset is different for every aircraft in real life. How many degrees is the MiG-29 seat tilted to help the pilot cope with Gee? Did the pilots do Gee warmups beforehand?

 

Demanding the same one size fits all Gee effect across all aircraft is not the solution.

+1

Exactly. Unless you place accelerometers in the helmet torso and feet of the pilot, the readout on the hud will only display the force in the space it (accelerometer) occupies, not on the entire body (which is also dependent on inclination and position). Even if you produce a video of the same turn, same speed in different planes, the forces on the body may be different.

the forces on the body may be different.

Yes, as far as we know due to seat inclination F-16 is at advantage, compared to MiG-29

I am honestly baffled by some of the comments here, the length to which you go to justify the sim's shortcoming is amazing.

I'll try to make sense of it:

1. The F-16 has a reclined seat which means the pilots handles g better than in a MiG-29. Fact.

2. Yes, at micro-level there would be minutely different g-forces in the feet, head etc. Again, the F-16 provides better g-resistance.

3. Do you seriously think DCS simulates local g-forces on the pilot's body? That's delusional. Also, it would make no big difference, if it did, there would be a separate g-meter for every part of the seat.

4. Air forces use centrifuges to train g-resistance and check pilots out. Why would they do that if g-forces were so different in every maneuver? Asnwer: G-force is an acceleration, it doesn't matter how you acheive that acceleration, what matters is the amount. You could be sitting in a very fast elevator, or in F-16 doing a loop, or in a centrifuge. 8g is 8g. Period. The ONLY difference is your seating position relative to the vertical g axis, hence, the F-16 has the edge here.

5. Formula 1 drivers get up to 6 lateral g, 5 negative g when breaking and 2 when accelerating, read up on it. No g-suits and no breathing technique necessary since these g are all but on the vertical axis. Sorry, this is physics, and you are wrong if you think anythign other than vertical g can make you black out.

PLEASE do yourself a favor and read. This is starting to look like the airspeed vs grounspeed thread.

... This is starting to look like the airspeed vs grounspeed thread.

Which, by the way, was a good one..! :megalol:

AF pilots are usually required to sustain 9G's for prolonged periods of time. That is the whole point of the F-16. There is also footage of Gripen and Rafale displays where the pilot sustains 9G's for several seconds. Wasn't the entire G model for DCS due for a re-work for early 2020? Haven't heard anything since.

Speaking from personal experience 7.5 G's, while uncomfortable, given a good physical condition and proper g strain technique can be sustained fairly long without any blackout effects. It sure is a workout but very doable.

Speaking from personal experience 7.5 G's, while uncomfortable, given a good physical condition and proper g strain technique can be sustained fairly long without any blackout effects. It sure is a workout but very doable.

Speaking from personal experience, you are absolutely right ;)

Which, by the way, was a good one..! :megalol:

:doh: It felt like talking to flat-earthers, lol!

Wasn't the entire G model for DCS due for a re-work for early 2020?

Where did you hear this? Heard nothing about it.

:doh: It felt like talking to flat-earthers, lol!

Haha! Indeed! :D

Where did you hear this? Heard nothing about it.

I probably wont find the exact quote but that was the message from ED after the Viper release since people complained about the dude blacking out at 8G's. The whole point of the Viper is that it can sustain 9+ G's, or rather allows the pilot to sustain 9 if needed.

I am honestly baffled by some of the comments here, the length to which you go to justify the sim's shortcoming is amazing.

 

I'll try to make sense of it:

 

1. The F-16 has a reclined seat which means the pilots handles g better than in a MiG-29. Fact.

 

2. Yes, at micro-level there would be minutely different g-forces in the feet, head etc. Again, the F-16 provides better g-resistance.

 

3. Do you seriously think DCS simulates local g-forces on the pilot's body? That's delusional. Also, it would make no big difference, if it did, there would be a separate g-meter for every part of the seat.

 

4. Air forces use centrifuges to train g-resistance and check pilots out. Why would they do that if g-forces were so different in every maneuver? Asnwer: G-force is an acceleration, it doesn't matter how you acheive that acceleration, what matters is the amount. You could be sitting in a very fast elevator, or in F-16 doing a loop, or in a centrifuge. 8g is 8g. Period. The ONLY difference is your seating position relative to the vertical g axis, hence, the F-16 has the edge here.

 

5. Formula 1 drivers get up to 6 lateral g, 5 negative g when breaking and 2 when accelerating, read up on it. No g-suits and no breathing technique necessary since these g are all but on the vertical axis. Sorry, this is physics, and you are wrong if you think anythign other than vertical g can make you black out.

 

PLEASE do yourself a favor and read. This is starting to look like the airspeed vs grounspeed thread.

My comment about comparing a spilt S vs a hard banking turn being wrong stays. Different maneuvers cause different forces in different locations and some (like the split S) will actually cause the forces to rotate around the plane/body.

Looking at the HUD and saying see both are reading 8.5 is just wrong and cannot be used to compare anything.

This discussion looks like its going off track, insults are already flying, so I am going to leave it after this But if you want to compare Gforce on the human body, you need to compare it using the same maneuvers. That is a fact.

Just as you admit, even the body position can drastically reduce the effects of the SAME G force applied to two different aircraft.

super sudden blackout instead of gradual blackout (8.5g)... (initial report january)

My comment about comparing a spilt S vs a hard banking turn being wrong stays. Different maneuvers cause different forces in different locations and some (like the split S) will actually cause the forces to rotate around the plane/body.

 

 

 

Looking at the HUD and saying see both are reading 8.5 is just wrong and cannot be used to compare anything.

 

This discussion looks like its going off track, insults are already flying, so I am going to leave it after this But if you want to compare Gforce on the human body, you need to compare it using the same maneuvers. That is a fact.

 

Just as you admit, even the body position can drastically reduce the effects of the SAME G force applied to two different aircraft.

You guys can argue all you want about g on different parts of the body or different onset or whatever. The main issue with dcs is we’re not flying real planes. DCS I can almost certainly say does not model pilot g to the extent that some people are talking about in this thread. It is much much more simplistic.

The real issue, to me at least, is that in a real plane you’re going to feel the onset of g on your body. You’re going to feel the g increasing. Youre going to feel the suit tightening. You’re going to feel, when pulling more and more g, that you’re getting closer to your limit and need to back off. The issue DanielNL I think is trying to convey is that a lot of times you just black out in DCS for seemingly no reason. The g limit in DCS does not demonstrate anything close to what a real pilot would be trained to deal with in many many different types of maneuvers from what I’ve come to understand. In just a tight horizontal turn in the sim I can get my virtual pilot to start blacking out at 7 g and he can only maintain 9 g for a second or 2. You go from no encroaching black on the sides of your screen or very very little to instantly blacking out of you pull just a little too hard with almost no warning or none at all. That’s not ok in my eyes and has led me and others to die repeatedly. DCS needs a redux on the g system and we need more indication somehow that pilot g limit is being reached regardless of the actual upper threshold.

Multiple 16 pilots I have talked to have said on multiple occasions that 16 pilots train to sustain 9 g or more for extended periods of time and not just instantly black out. The plane was designed to do this. The entire system, plane, pilots, etc was made to be able to pull maximum g for longer periods of time. I’ve heard anywhere between 20 seconds to a minute or even more. Also the fact that if you pull 8 g in the sim, almost black out, let off on the pull to lessen the g, and then try and add more pull again during the same turn you’ll almost fully black out at 6.5 g instead of the higher limit that started it all to begin with. That’s just seems wrong. I e never flown a real jet fighter, but from trying to simply educate myself on material out their already and from first hand accounts from people that have done it in real life DCS needs some major work.

Tldr pilot g in DCS is a mess and needs to be revamped soon.

You guys can argue all you want about g on different parts of the body or different onset or whatever. The main issue with dcs is we’re not flying real planes. DCS I can almost certainly say does not model pilot g to the extent that some people are talking about in this thread. It is much much more simplistic.

 

The real issue, to me at least, is that in a real plane you’re going to feel the onset of g on your body. You’re going to feel the g increasing. Youre going to feel the suit tightening. You’re going to feel, when pulling more and more g, that you’re getting closer to your limit and need to back off. The issue DanielNL I think is trying to convey is that a lot of times you just black out in DCS for seemingly no reason. The g limit in DCS does not demonstrate anything close to what a real pilot would be trained to deal with in many many different types of maneuvers from what I’ve come to understand. In just a tight horizontal turn in the sim I can get my virtual pilot to start blacking out at 7 g and he can only maintain 9 g for a second or 2. You go from no encroaching black on the sides of your screen or very very little to instantly blacking out of you pull just a little too hard with almost no warning or none at all. That’s not ok in my eyes and has led me and others to die repeatedly. DCS needs a redux on the g system and we need more indication somehow that pilot g limit is being reached regardless of the actual upper threshold.

 

Multiple 16 pilots I have talked to have said on multiple occasions that 16 pilots train to sustain 9 g or more for extended periods of time and not just instantly black out. The plane was designed to do this. The entire system, plane, pilots, etc was made to be able to pull maximum g for longer periods of time. I’ve heard anywhere between 20 seconds to a minute or even more. Also the fact that if you pull 8 g in the sim, almost black out, let off on the pull to lessen the g, and then try and add more pull again during the same turn you’ll almost fully black out at 6.5 g instead of the higher limit that started it all to begin with. That’s just seems wrong. I e never flown a real jet fighter, but from trying to simply educate myself on material out their already and from first hand accounts from people that have done it in real life DCS needs some major work.

 

Tldr pilot g in DCS is a mess and needs to be revamped soon.

Fair enough of a statement! I am in no position to claim that the modelling is right or wrong. If it is wrong then the modelling would be wrong for all aircraft.

If Daniel had a video of both aircraft puling 60 degree hard bank turn generating a constant 8.5gs and the F16 pilot consistently blacks out quicker and longer than the mig 29, then you could claim something might be wrong in the modelling of the F16.

Is it possible that FC3 aircraft is more generous when it comes to G Loc.... possibly. The point is if you want to compare, do it under the same exact conditions.

It has always felt to me that blackout onset used airspeed twice in its calculation. The onset rate to total G load with account to duration is the only thing that matters, yet it has always appeared that the same onset rate to the same G load produces blackouts faster when the airframe is moving more quickly. This shouldn't matter since you're already calculating the G load and onset rate.

I could be wrong, but this is my observation and experience.

More broadly, ultimately, blackout onset is tricky since we can't control it as virtual pilots and in reality it is very much pilot dependent. If I could get an edge by training my own G tolerance, then you can bet every day would be leg day.