LiquidFuse

I agree, under that reasoning.

The reason I labeled it a flight envelope issue was because the F-15C could not hold a turn at its RL turning speed of 350 KIAS for more than a few seconds. This I stated on numerous previous posts. I can understand why you say it is not a flight envelope issue, but further thought on the subject will prove that the relativity between turning speed and back pressure required to hold that specified speed on the turn will create an almost constant G-load as long as this speed is held constant on a level circle turn. In real life, "turning speed" assumes that the pilot can hold the speed in question for prolonged periods of time, making it possible for him/her to perform a fight in that speed envelope. If the pilot cannot hold the speed, this speed would not be classified as "turning speed". What good is a "turning speed" if you cannot turn in it? :icon_roll The overall flight envelope is based on this. Hence the problem, if the F-15C's turning speed is 350 KIAS, then the pilot MUST be able to hold that turn for prolonged periods of time in order to fight in it. Finally, in real life, USAF pilots who cannot hold 7 G turns are classified with "low G tolerance". Regardless of what some may believe, USAF fighters are speed fighters pulling turns in the 7 - 9 G realm. They train for this, plain and simple.

You're absolutely right. LOL The only reason I began to do my own research was to prove some of my arguments once they were being disregarded simply as "bad flying". A track was posted afterwards that proved otherwise. The flight envelope issue is with the F-15C's inability to sustain a turn at its turning speed of 350 KIAS. I'm sure I don't need to explain further for you to realize that the current G-model does not allow for a sustained turn at this speed for more than a few seconds. Hence, the result is always a slow speed fight for all aircraft with A-LOC occuring at as little as 5 G's...F-15C forced to fight at 280-250 KIAS, where its turn rate is slower when compared to the flanker. The length of this thread is due the continued debate after ED "representatives" felt it was more prudent to defend the model at all costs before accepting the possibility that it was overdone in some areas. Cheers.

Hi GGTharos, I'm sorry, could you provide a source I can read that would support that statement? Nearly every source I have says otherwise, with the Eagle lacking in low speed / high AoA maneuverability due to the absence of automatic flap lowering like in the Super Hornet. Also, if you take notice on the Eagle's design, you can come to the conclusion that its shape is not for a high lift/drag scenario, but completely the opposite. The Eagle was aparently designed to reach Mach 2+ sacrificing wingspan, thus sacrificing low speed maneuverability. The Eagle's wingspan as FAR shorter than that of the Flanker. I cannot produce where I found the following, but I remember hearing (or reading) that USAF pilots train exceptionally hard to withstand high G's for very prolonged periods of time since it is critical to extract the last ounce of turning performance out of their fighters. Most USAF fighters turn at the 350-450 KIAS range - definitely not a slow speed realm.

S! Goshawk1, I agree with your post fully and I take this opportunity to point our the following: From the research that I've done this past month I can conclude that your personal tolerance is normal, where 7 G's is usually implicitely used as the benchmark G figure to test USAF pilots in (8 G's is used to test F-16 pilots). Consider the following: I've undergone consistent testing while flying the F-15C and under a normal dogfight situation, a sustained 7 G turn for at least 30 seconds is not possible in FC 1.1. Within the second or third turn, my pilot goes into A-LOC on a 300 KIAS turn holding 6 G's at a time frame of merely 14-16 seconds. I haver argued all along that 7 G's is the figure that modern pilots should be able to hold and is the NATO minimum G load factor that all flight crews need to withstand for 15 seconds in order to have "normal" G load tolerance. Again, the current G model does not allow for this to happen except on the very first turn after a fresh respawn. All subsequent turns result in A-LOC in 15 seconds or less at 6 G's, with 5 G's being the "turning G load" figure in which dogfights must be carried out in FC 1.1. - This means, sustained 5 G turn on an F-15C with 6,000 pounds of fuel onboard = 280 KIAS turn. - The turning speed for the F-15C is 350 KIAS. - At 280 KIAS, the F-15C is turning at about 70% of its total turn rate capacity. - At the same speed, the Flanker is turning close ot 100% of its total turn rate capacity. In conclusion, my argument with ED is that unless the pilots can withstand 7 G's for 30 seconds or more, the F-15C has no chance of fighting in speed figures in which it was designed to fight on (350 KIAS). Hence, the Flanker wins, nearly everytime. I have personally concluded that they are happy with this outcome.

LOL :icon_lol: Give me a break, are you serious? Grab your reading glasses before you attempt to read the following: 1 - Edit the G-model to allow for the F-15C to sustain a turn at its real world turning speed of 350 KIAS without going into A-LOC. 2 - I am an ONLINE PLAYER, not single play. The SERVERS control this, not my personal settings. Placed it nice and big in bold letters for you, there should be no mistakes here. Sorry buddy, but you can't excuse an oversensitive G-model with the existence of precise aiming at high G turns... There's no excusing 1 attribute with the effect of another... Just like there was no excuse for the Flanker not turning properly in 1.02 at low speeds because it kept stalling... Why don't we save ourselves some time and energy and you post here plain and clearly if you will do something about this, or not. I'm waiting for your answer.

What Ice 169th is describing here is known as A-LOC which is *almost* a G-LOC. Real pilots are trained to recognize light loss (their unique type of light loss) and to take appropiate action once they detect light loss. Light loss is the singlemost important symptoss of G-LOC, with a blackout being the last symptom. Real pilots don't go on pulling constant G's when their field of vision has shrunk to the size of a peanut. As I stated before, I recently talked to several pilots and one of them (KnellKnell) actually posted here that 7G's can be sustained for prolonged periods of time without A-LOC. I'm not sure which part of this statement is confusing to the Dev's. Instead, you (ED) make a track that shows several yanks and hard pulls with the pilot almost G-LOC'ed on several occasions and say this is how its supposed to be... Does the word brain damage mean anything to you? Do you truly think pilots go on to Gray/Black Out at every single hop? Why don't you get one of your "source" pilots to come in here and say "I G-LOC at 6 G's after 50 seconds EVERY TIME. I can't do any better than that". It is clear to me that you are more interested in defending your model than actually evaluating "the other data" that other players (and pilots) have posted here and truly consider the possibility that you may have gone overboard just a tad on the g-tolerances.

YO-YO, Please view this: http://169thpanthers.net/main/Tracks/Gz-1.zip This is a test track made by the CO of 169th Black Panthers putting the Full G Effects model to the test. As you will see in this track, he slowly pulls from 1 to 6 G's as gently as he can, holding G's at each integer every 10 - 20 seconds each. There is absolutely no hard turning or yanking in this track at any time...simple pull to 6 G's. Here its proven that the model goes into A-LOC at 6 G's in merely 10 - 15 seconds. The results from the track contradict the AnPetrovich data you just posted. I don't think that arguing over the pinpoint accuracy of the model is going to do anyone any good. What is clear here is that the current behavior of the model contradicts real world data, even the data you just posted, where it clearly states 6 G's for 70 seconds. FC 1.1 - 6 G's = A-LOC in 10 - 15 seconds. Please mark Ice's track for your review, which essentially proves and shows what I explained from the very beggining... :frown: Thank you.

1.02 operated in the exact opposite spectrum as 1.1. The change was so dramatic in fact, that the average turning speed for the Eagle went down from 350 - 450 KIAS (1.02) to 280 - 250 KIAS (1.1). Being tired of watching players doing loopies at 500+ KIAS (I hated this) without blacking out will surely give an itch to any realism "junkie" like myself and other pilots. On the 1.1 spectrum, the Eagle can't do sustained 500+ KIAS turns at 10G's anymore, which is great! But by the same token, it can't turn at 350 - 320 KIAS for more than a few seconds either. The latter range is where the Eagle turns best. So now the Eagle is forced to fly at lower speeds by necessity to keep its pilot from going into G-LOC. In short, the Eagle fights at 70-80% of its total turn rate in FC 1.1, 100% sustained turning capacity is not achievable anymore. So, the devs will need to do 1 of the following: 1 - Bring up the G-tolerances to a degree where the Eagle pilot can sustain a turn at its turning speed of 350 KIAS without going into G-LOC. 2 - Modify the Eagle's FM to allow 100% turning capacity at a lower speed. In other words, this would be lowering the turning speed of the Eagle to a speed range that the pilot can hold in FC without G-LOC. Please keep in mind that option #2 will cause the Eagle to fly more like a Flanker than a real Eagle, and as such it would be unrealistic. You're right, its not impossible. But think about this: For a Flanker pilot, how unpleasant would it be for him or her to have to fly the Flanker at high speed fights to win because the FM didnt allow accurate and proper slow speed turning? If this were the case, you would see this forum flooded with critical posts claiming that the Flanker sucks, crying outrage because its a Russian sim not properly modelling its own bird. Fair is fair gentlemen, all planes from all sides have to perform how they're meant to perform, not only as well as a G-limitation lets it.

The part where they discuss the 8G limit for relaxed G tolerance is a hypothetical case of a pilot withstanding 6 G's, prepping himself with lower G turns to get his heart rate up before the first high G pull. I have read and heard from several pilots recently that they have flown at 7G with their suit inflated and not have to strain at all or very little. The more I talk and read on the subject, the more I hear that the G limit that USAF pilots do talk about with some "fear" is 9 G's. Aparently this is extremely hard to achieve and mantain without A-LOC unless at top leg and abdominal shape coupled with the best strain manuever (G-Hook) and the best G-suit available. The F-16 keeps popping up and its "magic" seat with 30* degree rotation. lol :icon_lol:

Try lowering the effects setting to low.

Heres a link to an interesting Power Point briefing for Navy pilots. http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/GTIP.PPT Cheers!

I completely agree that its relevant and valid. However, for the sake of simplicity of the thread (quite complex already) and making it as short as possible (quite long already), I agree that its best if we concentrate on the G issue affecting only the pilots for now. The thread is quite contested with the dev's taking very careful steps towards a decision to modify the model and other players here defending it against those that feel it is overdone. I personally will keep all my attention to the Pilot g-tolerance issue since this directly affects (in some cases destroys) online gameplay for some F-15C pilots. Cheers. :beer:

Right, and I complained about this during 1.02. Eagles were abusing G's and making cartoony turns combined with rudder and flaps pulling 10 G's and getting everyone's 6oc because the late model allowed this. In addition, please note that in 1.02, pilots were turning their Eagles at 500+ KIAS deliberately without G-LOC, which is absolute crap. Now its completely the opposite, the only way for the Eagle to even put up a fight is by flying with 35% of fuel (4000 - 5000 pounds), with FULL flaps down doing 150 knots stall turns with your stick about to snap off due to shaking. Sure, anyone can contest that you can use boom and zoom tactics (and I do), but sooner or later you will have to slow down to ridiculous speeds in order to get a good gun shot that is not head on when fighting the Flanker. What I'm asking is simply for the pilots to withstand not 8, not 9, but an acceptable 7 G's as per sources and centrifuge training done on USAF pilots. At 7 G's the Eagle can mantain a 350 - 320 KIAS as necessary to combat the slow speed high turn rate of the Flanker. Ignore this, and the Flanker will be become the F-22 of Lo-Mac skies...

Thank you, I completely concurr with you. I talked to a UK RAF pilot, which I won't name here, that lurks in HL from time to time and happened to be on last night. He flies in the F/A-18 and tells me that the G tolerances in FC 1.1 are more akin to personell classified with low G-tolerance. The better pilots can withstand sustained 7 G turns without G-LOC and 8 G for short amounts of time. 9 G's is a very short pull and goes into G-LOC after 5 or so seconds with current F/A-18 TLLS equipment.