Pilot fatigue under G's

each pilot depending on physicality and also depending on the level of training has different characteristics of resistance to G

Maybe we should have them simulate a fly in the cockpit, buzzing around your face, or itchy nuts?

Wait, I though this was already a feature. :megalol:

Very witty - I've been flying sims since 1986, matey so take your snotty attitude elsewhere, please. Oh yes - and flown real RAF aircraft as well, many years ago.

 

Like I said, afaic redout/blackout is sufficient.

 

btw anything done sat at a monitor, under a roof, is about as realistic and authentic as daffy duck - so don't come on the "it's not real because it doesn't have what I think it should" crap.

 

But like I said earlier - where you wanna stop? Fly caught in the cockpit and buzzing around your face? Itchy nuts? Feeling pukey? I mean, it's a simulator - so if you can't have that, well maybe you're on the wrong platform?

 

Here endeth the lesson - goodbye. :smartass:

You like paradoxe don't you? You talking about snotty attitude.

But you're right, why incorporating step by step features to make a flight sim deserving his name "sim". Why bothering implementing tens and tens of DDI's / MFD pages for the Hornet the Viper the Warthog etc ... one button to select a missile and one for launch is way enough. ED should just do more FC3 planes. Scrap those years of dev, new turbulences, rain effect, ground effect etc ... a clear sky is enough right ? Etc ... etc .. etc ..

With such a logic flight sim such as DCS would not even exist nowadays. So as i said, you're probably on the wrong platform sir. Have a nice day :music_whistling:

DIGITAL COMBAT SIMULATOR

ok the word COMBAT says that it must simulate the combat ..............simulatr the combat as to STREET FIGHTER (ARCADE GAME) without energy and stamina is illogical.

a real pilot goes to the gym and trains for strong abdominals.

the abdominals harden slowing the flow of blood due to the force G. then with the anti-G suit all this is made more simple.

a pilot does swimming to better synchronize the breathing rhythms in case of force G must have an excellent breathing technique.

then if he doesn't like many simmers just select in the game options.

-combat with stress.

-combat without stress

 

Like I said, afaic redout/blackout is sufficient.

 

Clearly Not otherwise you would not have quake air kill servers and people just BFMing all day long and night and then landing rearming and going at it again.... (by the way unheard of since the Battle of Britain)...

I strongly believe that Fatigue and G pulling ability limitation would greatly enhance the realism, and specially the immersion of this sim. and it directly affects tactics witch is a very important part of realism IMHO...

I see it like Pate. DCS is a simulator. So important functions - and this includes the fatigue of the pilot under high G's - should be simulated. Of course, every person tolerates G-loads in different ways. ED could just take an average experience as a reference. To refuse such functions in principle, because DCS pilots only sit in front of a monitor and not in a real plane, I think is exaggerated. Then we can play arcade games right away, because sitting in front of the monitor anyway has nothing to do with real flight. I just wonder why the military are using simulators, too. :huh:

I see it like Pate. DCS is a simulator. So important functions - and this includes the fatigue of the pilot under high G's - should be simulated. Of course, every person tolerates G-loads in different ways. ED could just take an average experience as a reference. To refuse such functions in principle, because DCS pilots only sit in front of a monitor and not in a real plane, I think is exaggerated. Then we can play arcade games right away, because sitting in front of the monitor anyway has nothing to do with real flight. I just wonder why the military are using simulators, too. :huh:

making a military plane fly is very expensive.

fuel costs

maintenance costs

armament costs

various costs and unnecessary expenses in a period without war.

this is why military pilots not only have training hours in real flight but also training hours in simulated flight. Usually the simulated flight has advantages more than the real one, and in the military the simulators are faithful to reality and they can reproduce war scenarios that are unlikely in reality.

The g-tolerance simulation in DCS is below fighter pilot capability.

There's no need for fatigue - you can't even hold 9G long enough as real fighter pilots in-game (in DCS you're limited between 5-10 sec, depending on warm-up) ... that you can run around at 4-8g cycles and hold 7g very long may or may not be a thing, but let's be very clear:

Real fighter pilots have said that the g-tolerance in-game is BELOW capability.

ED based g-tolerance on aero-medical studies and a g-tolerance STOHL curve like the one attached.

I await the 'paradoxical people's' own science regarding g-tolerance and fatigue. Present actual number, studies and graphs - otherwise I would expect ED to ignore your wishlist item just as they ignore evidence-free, 'feelings-based' judgments of aircraft performance ... which is exactly as it should be for a SIMULATOR.

The g-tolerance simulation in DCS is below fighter pilot capability.

There's no need for fatigue - you can't even hold 9G long enough as real fighter pilots in-game (in DCS you're limited between 5-10 sec, depending on warm-up) ... that you can run around at 4-8g cycles and hold 7g very long may or may not be a thing, but let's be very clear:

 

Real fighter pilots have said that the g-tolerance in-game is BELOW capability.

 

ED based g-tolerance on aero-medical studies and a g-tolerance STOHL curve like the one attached.

 

I await the 'paradoxical people's' own science regarding g-tolerance and fatigue. Present actual number, studies and graphs - otherwise I would expect ED to ignore your wishlist item just as they ignore evidence-free, 'feelings-based' judgments of aircraft performance ... which is exactly as it should be for a SIMULATOR.

Thanks a lot for your message very interesting ! :smilewink:

It would be hard to gather datas in a pure science if i may say. I hope the not to be named sim will release a part of their studies on the subject. What is possible to do at the moment would be to gather videos of pilots sharing their experiences of flying and G's. There is few i'm already thinking of, i will do it that assap. They explain very well the impact of the fatigue on their G tolerance. And the consequences on dogfight.

If you cross those feedback with a forever 7 to 8G holding in DCS, something seems very very wrong. Add the 9G tolerance too being off, then we can maybe say that it's probably the entire G simulation in DCS being wrong ?

It would then deserve even more to be corrected !

PS : i had a look on some STOHL, did i understood them wrong or they say that symptoms should already appear at 5G

It would be hard to gather datas in a pure science if i may say.

No it isn't, I found it in like 10 minutes of googling + reading the science

I hope the not to be named sim will release a part of their studies on the subject.

The 'other sim' studies are 100% irrelevant to DCS. You don't use another simulator as the basis for anything in yours, or at least, it shouldn't.

What is possible to do at the moment would be to gather videos of pilots sharing their experiences of flying and G's. There is few i'm already thinking of, i will do it that assap. They explain very well the impact of the fatigue on their G tolerance. And the consequences on dogfight.

Useless. I hate to be harsh, but this is exactly as useless as trying to simulate an aircraft based on 'pilots sharing their experiences'. Also, the serious effects on physiology caused by this has to do with very rapid onset over-g (positive and negative) and a bunch of it is not possible to simulate. I suppose you could severely penalize g-tolerance, but I think there's just no point for this in the simulator when it is impossible for you to physically perceive that what you're doing is wrong - ie. the warning signs will ALWAYS be lacking.

The nature of these events is also very transient, and IMHO if they're severe enough the DCS pilot will either g-loc or the airframe should take punishment or both.

If you cross those feedback with a forever 7 to 8G holding in DCS, something seems very very wrong. Add the 9G tolerance too being off, then we can maybe say that it's probably the entire G simulation in DCS being wrong ?

 

It would then deserve even more to be corrected !

The G simulation in DCS is actually fine, save for some relatively minor (IMHO) details. The fatigue curves for high G-tolerance/SACM go so far that you'll usually run out of fuel before this becomes a serious factor - this is just my preliminary interpretation and could change.

PS : i had a look on some STOHL, did i understood them wrong or they say that symptoms should already appear at 5G

This is for people in 'resting tolerance' ie. no helpful factor from training, g-warm up, AGSM or aids like g-suit. Ie, you and me just sitting in our chairs.

No it isn't, I found it in like 10 minutes of googling + reading the science

If yu refer to document like those, it's matter of personnal opinion but those are just experimentations that give more or less the same infos that those pilots give. But you're right we should incorpore them they're solid ref.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7527/aa4e755c4fdb6f817b580741bd57fa4e7872.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8453/5b586c86f7552385d1a8e25cb5d0ce277f0c.pdf

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a204689.pdf

https://books.google.fr/books?id=BlbmBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=g+tolerance+and+fatigue&source=bl&ots=ssx_4aw_jg&sig=ACfU3U1CXkiMPT7D_jWlHGAb8LpxQu9lug&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiFuZLVzMvkAhVh8-AKHX87BrsQ6AEwBXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=g%20tolerance%20and%20fatigue&f=false

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/adb7/c394744ac433f9e196bf9d859b088c1a1dbb.pdf

The 'other sim' studies are 100% irrelevant to DCS. You don't use another simulator as the basis for anything in yours, or at least, it shouldn't.

In what aspect are their studies irrevelant ? We are speaking about research on human G's tolerence. They study the same subject, very probably with the same documents, will extract the same conclusions. It doesnt means copy their studies, it means worth giving a look at them. Sorry but it doesn't make sense at all.

Useless. I hate to be harsh, but this is exactly as useless as trying to simulate an aircraft based on 'pilots sharing their experiences'. Also, the serious effects on physiology caused by this has to do with very rapid onset over-g (positive and negative) and a bunch of it is not possible to simulate. I suppose you could severely penalize g-tolerance, but I think there's just no point for this in the simulator when it is impossible for you to physically perceive that what you're doing is wrong - ie. the warning signs will ALWAYS be lacking.

The nature of these events is also very transient, and IMHO if they're severe enough the DCS pilot will either g-loc or the airframe should take punishment or both.

I never said go on look this video and from this, simulate an entire human body resistence. I say if pilots say A, and DCS is doing F, it's enough to assume that there is a mistake somewhere in the DCS simulation model. I agree finding solid research would be necessary to then simulate it properly. But as a starting point we are initially speaking about : hey there is something wrong at the moment seems, would you consider having a look on it ?

The G simulation in DCS is actually fine, save for some relatively minor (IMHO) details. The fatigue curves for high G-tolerance/SACM go so far that you'll usually run out of fuel before this becomes a serious factor - this is just my preliminary interpretation and could change.

I hate to be harsh, but so 10min of research on internet were enough so you can assume, no in DCS it's fine as it is ? Which means you now know better than most of the pilots who spoke about this aspect. And by the way it took me 5min to find this line in one of the docs :

" at 6G only one subject reached the arbitrary limit of 2min, one subject stopped because of severe discomfort and the other six subjects experienced blackout. "

But you are right, in DCS doing 7G during 20min without blackout is actually FINE.

Guys if i don't know if you are scared by more realism on DCS, or if the fact that we are the chair force for you means that DCS shouldn't keep improving aspect to make it more realist (which does't make sense), but then you'll just have to disable the option. You're welcome. With your logic DCS would still at the level of Flaming Cliffs today.

Well hell...this would not be complete and would be totally Unsat without simulating pilot facial expressions as well...

Well hell...this would not be complete and would be totally Unsat without simulating pilot facial expressions as well...

This idea is GOLD ! :megalol:

Show that facial expression in the mirror of the cockpit :music_whistling:

If yu refer to document like those, it's matter of personnal opinion but those are just experimentations that give more or less the same infos that those pilots give. But you're right we should incorpore them they're solid ref.

Yep. Everything else is 'feelings'.

In what aspect are their studies irrevelant ? We are speaking about research on human G's tolerence. They study the same subject, very probably with the same documents, will extract the same conclusions. It doesnt means copy their studies, it means worth giving a look at them. Sorry but it doesn't make sense at all.

I disagree, it's a bunch of people implementing their interpretation of the data in their game. To be clear, ED will do this independently if they do it at all - thus, the 'other sim' is irrelevant.

I agree finding solid research would be necessary to then simulate it properly. But as a starting point we are initially speaking about : hey there is something wrong at the moment seems, would you consider having a look on it ?

Ok, here's the answer then,m IMHO: there's nothing wrong - conclusions are that fighter pilots can consistently maintain 7g performance. Current research is into raising this above 9g.

I hate to be harsh, but so 10min of research on internet were enough so you can assume, no in DCS it's fine as it is ?

Actually, yes? I mean the answers were there :)

Which means you now know better than most of the pilots who spoke about this aspect.

I thought we were past the pilots already. The research is what matters. Let me put it another way. These pilots RELY on this research for their very lives.

" at 6G only one subject reached the arbitrary limit of 2min, one subject stopped because of severe discomfort and the other six subjects experienced blackout. "

But you are right, in DCS doing 7G during 10min without blackout is actually FINE.

Yes, I am right. Thanks for picking out a quote without any context whatsoever - here's a clue:

At rest, a person can tolerate 3g for a long time, and 4g begins to strain - some people are already unconscious.

A trained and conditioned pilot will usually be able to do a bit better at rest. A pilot who's straining adds another 2g on top of this, +1g for the suit, +whatever pressure breathing gives you, and another + for overall tolerance if you do a warm-up.

Aerobic exercise increases the overall endurance, while weight lifting gives the necessary strength (this what we mean by 'conditioned')

If you believe I'm wrong, I suggest you find specific data. And to be clear, it's not even me that you have to convince, but ED - and they'll look at it in more detail than I do.

Guys if i don't know if you are scared by more realism on DCS, or if the fact that we are the chair force for you means that DCS shouldn't keep improving aspect to make it more realist (which does't make sense), but then you'll just have to disable the option. You're welcome. With your logic DCS would still at the level of Flaming Cliffs today.

The only 'chair force here' is you, with respect to the research. You don't know what realism is in this case, and you've proven it by hanging yourself on a single context-free quote.

Centrifuge testing and training for fighter pilots indicates quite a bit more tolerance than you want to believe.

It's more like you're sitting here bothered by your virtual pilot not becoming even more of a limp noodle than he/she is.

Just what do you think you're going to achieve in terms of a dogfight? You want a g-tolerance management mini-game on top of what's there already? :)

tolerance data to g are useful to create the parameters of the untrained but ready to fly standard pilot.

IN DCS I want the standard parameters to be entered ......

-1 caridaci beats line and rhythm increase according to G.

-2 second line must be an energy line of STAMINA that when the pilot finishes does more work and has more difficulty supporting the G.

-3 line physical strength oxygen serves to regulate the anti-g suit oxygen and pressure.

Effects on the monitor red vision and black vision depending on the G + or G-.

DCS options with stress

DCS without stress.

more realistic combat with the risk of losing consciousness in high G.

Request 3 mini grafic line of survaival

+ and visual effect.

tolerance data to g are useful to create the parameters of the untrained but ready to fly standard pilot.

 

IN DCS I want the standard parameters to be entered ......

-1 caridaci beats line and rhythm increase according to G.

What for?

-2 second line must be an energy line of STAMINA that when the pilot finishes does more work and has more difficulty supporting the G.

There's already a g-warm up mechanic, adds tolerance to the STOHL curve, as do other devices in-game, like g-suits etc.

-3 line physical strength oxygen serves to regulate the anti-g suit oxygen and pressure.

Effects on the monitor red vision and black vision depending on the G + or G-.

Already there, modeled by following the STOHL curve.

more realistic combat with the risk of losing consciousness in high G.

Already there.

Will we really play this game like that forever.

Man don't tell me 'picking out a quote without any context whatsoever ' to do the exact same thing right after ...

But fine if you want more infos here it is :

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

The Duration of Tolerance to Positive Acceleration

CAPTAIN HUGH MILLER, USAF (MC),

FIRST LIEUTENANT MITCHELL B. RILEY, USAF,

CAPTAIN STUART BONDURANT, USAF (MC) and EDWIN P. HIATT, M.D.

Test done within a group of eight young adult males varying widely in positive g tolerance chosen from the trained volunteer centrifuge panel. Are those people pilots or in formation or just people trained to G i don't know tbh.

During the test done with G suit here are the best results :

- 3G : 1h arbitrary stop without any problem except one subject who blackout

- 4G : 20min arbitrary stop without problem

- 5G : 6 subjects up to the arbitrary stop at 4min, 2 subjects blackout

- 6G : 2 subject up to 2min arbitrary stop, 6 blackout

If we add the + 2G for experienced in straining and eventual +1G for people having better tolerence it still fairly low.

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

A Conceptual Model for Predicting Pilot Group G Tolerance for Tactical Fighter Aircraf

Another report from the Aerospace Medical Association who made studies after the F16 to see how G's tolerance can be increased. Their idea was the F16 seat is around 30°, what if we recline a seat to 65° reducing the height of the column from 334 to 220mm (which isn't the case in any plane in DCS)

Only with this 65° seat it appeared that (only) the strongest pilots could resist 10.8min at 7G (in DCS at the moment we can keep between 7 to 8G for more than 10min, and we have at best around 30° seats)

They saw that in ACM simulation that 65° would not increase the performance but improve the resistance through time to the G's. They estimated that you can add 2G's without problem compare to the 30°. Except the problem of the head/eye angle.

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

Its also interesting to look at NASA point of view on G's for the safety of their crew

On the NASA-STD-3001 VOL 2 we can see that their limit before considering during the launch, that their crew capacities may be affected, is between few secondes to max 5min at 7G

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

So, infos seems to confirm what those pilots said, which make sense because being pilots they know what they talk about. DCS is indeed simulating warm up, but doesn't seems to simulate fatigue, or simulate it wrong. Time is affecting the G tolerence but at the moment it seems that in DCS G tolerance increase but never decrease. So back to the original post, it would make sense to add that g tolerance degradation through time & G's in DCS.

Will we really play this game like that forever.

We can. I'll post the PDF I was reading some time later.

Test done within a group of eight young adult males varying widely in positive g tolerance chosen from the trained volunteer centrifuge panel. Are those people pilots or in formation or just people trained to G i don't know tbh.

Given the names of the researches and the rest of the text, those are likely pilots. But, the test appears to be a resting g test. That means you're in the centrifuge but you do nothing to resist the g.

During the test done with G suit here are the best results :

- 3G : 1h arbitrary stop without any problem except one subject who blackout

- 4G : 20min arbitrary stop without problem

- 5G : 6 subjects up to the arbitrary stop at 4min, 2 subjects blackout

- 6G : 2 subject up to 2min arbitrary stop, 6 blackout

 

If we add the + 2G for experienced in straining and eventual +1G for people having better tolerence it still fairly low.

+2 for strain +1 for g-suit, +0.something for g-warm-up, and you're immediately at the 'DCS level' ... so you're theoretically at the '4g level' for your standard DCS pilot.

I'm skipping the reclining seat because it's not that important in this case:

Only with this 65° seat it appeared that (only) the strongest pilots could resist 10.8min at 7G (in DCS at the moment we can keep between 7 to 8G for more than 10min, and we have at best around 30° seats)

This is continuous 7g, which we do NOT do in DCS anyway, nor is it done in real combat. In real combat you do SACM.

So, infos seems to confirm what those pilots said, which make sense because being pilots they know what they talk about. DCS is indeed simulating warm up, but doesn't seems to simulate fatigue, or simulate it wrong. Time is affecting the G tolerence but at the moment it seems that in DCS G tolerance increase but never decrease. So back to the original post, it would make sense to add that g tolerance degradation through time & G's in DCS.

Again, pilot opinions are largely irrelevant in simulation. IMHO Fatigue isn't going to give you much, you're going to run yourself out of fuel before fatigue becomes a problem. You'd have to run on unlimited fuel for it to be a factor, in which case ... you're not simulating realism anyway.

If you're looking to simulate fatigue overall, then why not consider the time-in-flight as well? From the moment you spawn in the cockpit until you go to spectators, your pilot accumulates fatigue. Or perhaps you want to keep it server-based and a pilot is fatigued on a given server for a number of hours?

Yep, it's pretty much the same as you're suggesting, because this fatigue will not affect a dogfight - if the fatigue was aggressive, it would affect both pilots so you change nothing. If the fatigue isn't aggressive, you gain nothing.

If your opponent performs SACM (g-on-g-off), he won't be fatigued.

If someone has to take on one dogfight after another, they're still fuel-limited.

So once more, I'm not sure what result you're looking for other than changing the g-tolerance mini-game. I don't consider that to be more realistic.

"I disagree, it's a bunch of people implementing their interpretation of the data in their game. To be clear, ED will do this independently if they do it at all - thus, the 'other sim' is irrelevant."

I'm pretty sure the study notes is what was being referred to... Not the implementation of them. So... No reason to start from ground zero if someone else has done well reasoned scientific study and/or aggregated the research.

Relative implementation is a different subject entirely.

No reason to start from ground zero if someone else has done well reasoned scientific study and/or aggregated the research.

Yes, ED will do their own research. They won't rely on anyone else's notes. :)

Damn man how many back and forth did it required. So we are on the same page now right ? DCS isn't simulating G tolerance decrease ?

Just if we add +2G to the value of the test. Possibly done without any AGSM indeed they never speak about any, we still not at DCS level man :

4G = 4 min with 2 subjects blackout --> that would give 7G = 4 min with 2 subjects blackout.

6G = 2min with 6 black out --> that would give 8G = 2min with 6 blackout

Cross this with the 10.8min 7G only with 65° seat, in DCS we should not last as long under those G's.

Indeed and combat nor flight you will never be at 7G for 10 min non stop, as i said it's to show that DCS doesn't simulate fatigue. I'll read better the ASCM part but the way i understood in the end it's the same, but pulling releasing, pulling releasing you still hurt your organisme and reduce your tolerance. At a point you still have to stop because g tolerance reduced too much.

And you're right ! Fligth time should affect it too exactly. And it should be part of a new human body simulation.

Then if now we are on the same page, in DCS it's wrong atm, why should be implemented ? It's not a mini game, it's a part of the simulation.

- For many reason, it will be a game changer if after 1h of flight already done if you had to enter for any reason into some ACM it will be more difficult.

- In a dogfight of pilots of the same level in the end it's the one that preserved the most his pilot that could take the advantage.

- It would force you to consider the fuel ressources of the plane but also energy ressources of the pilot

- It would avoid, take off fight land quick refuel, take off fight land quick, refuel, take off fight ...

- Etc etc ...

But better, why shouldn't it be implemented ? It's a simulator, a point is wrong, why shouldn't it be corrected. Would be like saying getting out of a stall is a minigame itself why implementing stall aircraft behavior. Spending minutes managing your GPS guided bombs on the DDI's. Spending minutes orbiting exploring the SA ... everything itself is a minigame. Because we are on DCS.