Pâte

Any even roughly ideas on when we can hope this to be solved ? :)

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.

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.

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. 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 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 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 ? 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.

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

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:

Looks like a nice paradox demonstration going on here. Saying that incorporing pilot fatigue would reduce realism while at the moment the pilot is closer to SuperMan than a human. It's fairly 'easy' to gather datas to calculate an average reaction. Giving a human body capacity in the 'norm'. As said Art-j and as mentionned on the first post another simulator that we shouldn't name is currently working on it. But if you are afraid of the Digital Combat "SIMULATOR" aspect then maybe you are on the wrong paltform. Regarding ED focus on details that make a whole difference such as the new turbulences, this G's detail could be vey well something that they would add.

You made my day ! :lol:

Thanks for the title update:thumbup:

Hi guys, I'm not sure if it's a bug or the Hornet navigation system being a bit outdated. The TOT function doesn't take in account the GSPD desired for the final leg. - If you change the desired GSPD while you are on the leg prior the final one you will see that the required speed don't change. While it should ? If you request a higher GSPD for the final leg the current required speed should reduce, and vice versa ? - Once you are on the final leg it will show you the GSPD you desired, but if you follow it you will see that you won't be on time at all. And you can reduce or increase speed, it wont update to make you speed up or slow down a tad to catch the time. It's simply stuck on the speed you asked. - And if disable the desired GSPD during that final leg you will see that you were or too fast or too slow. It won't match at all the speed you desired Thanks. TOT_TEST.trk

Still no report no investigation nothing ? Shall we consider that this is a ' CORRECT AS IS ' ?

Of course we can simulate fatigue, not all the aspect indeed but, the G tolerance reducing through time & maneuvers it's a part of the fatigue that can be simulated :thumbup:

Not having experimented myself such G's tbh i have no idea what are the exact effect on the vision other than the red layer and the grey then black out . It was just some ideas to use effect already in place in DCS. But you're right, having the exact reaction of an human body would be even better :thumbup: If the devs of IL release their studies could be pretty interesting

NineLine will you avoid/escape to answer our community forever ? Side note, those vortex turublences are amazing, would be awesome if the whole atmospheric system could be as developed and multiplayer compatible. Is that in the to do list even for later ?

A little question for you NineLine as i didn't got any answer on facebook. Linked to the very first post subsections, "About comparisons and censorship" and "About an open communication". Why is there such a massive gap between the aerobatic community and ED ? This community has been there since the very begining of LockOn, and always been very active organizing events and showing of what can be done in your flight sim. However because some are flying mods aircraft this commnuity seems to be the bad duck of DCS. This is not our fault if those planes are not in the module list, so we just add them. But it doesnt stop us from using the modules too, we are not always just trailing smokes. And during events DCS still highly promoted, we just clearly explain that some planes are tuned but it doesnt stop people from getting interested into joining your DCS. Many people/compagnies see interest into what this community does. From real air forces, real airshows, to air museums, compagnies that build the flight controls that everybody here use etc ... Even Heatblur were happy to do a solo demo at our main event last year ! In a way, aren't airshow one of the main tools that use air forces to promote the military aviation world ? Why ED is putting a point at not exchanging or sharing anything from our community, this is sad. DCS always been the best flight sim for this communty to perform, but with an old competitor flight sim raising his voice again, and our community still feeling not considered at all, a transition toward other opportunities is highly considered. Thanks for your time.

Hi guys. Got an idea watching the video about fatigue accumulation on the heatblur tomcat structure. But what about the pilot ? Question for the devs, is this feature is something feasible ? Question for the pilots, would you like this feature or not ? --> Simulate the fatigue of the pilot, reducing his resistance against G the more you play with them. Would be fairly interesting to have the same thing applied on the pilot in DCS. And no longer fly Superman pilot. Right now we black out at a substained 9G or more, but no big deal you can release and pull again without any problem. Or you can keep substained high G turn forever like really forever. Here some studies about G's on the pilots refering to tolerance being affected by flight time & G's amount - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7527/aa4e755c4fdb6f817b580741bd57fa4e7872.pdf - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/adb7/c394744ac433f9e196bf9d859b088c1a1dbb.pdf?_ga=2.190256558.427427360.1568327426-301491428.1568327426 - 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 I think that this would add whole new layer on the simulation, forcing us to think about resting the pilot and manage better G's :thumbup: . Here a post of the devs of IL-2 currently working on this exact same aspect https://www.facebook.com/il2sturmovik/posts/2302667223144456?hc_location=ufi Thanks for your time :)

Ho i may have missunderstood it, will double check. But i think i saw in the manual that the Hornet has some inlet duct doors avoiding low speed air entering toward the inlet. I was wondering maybe in the throttle OFF position, they close letting slow air into the engine giving less RPM during the windmill ? Same with the bleedair/ATS duct valve, if closing or opening it automatically when throttle go OFF, if it can affect their airflow of the windmill

Very interesting :) . I'll try to find what the manual is saying about crossbleed & ducts. Thanks :thumbup:

No REPORT ?

Thanks for the report bbrz :) The gydraulic pump isn't disable, all the systems linked to the AMAD still running in both case to retains vital systems. The only difference that i can spot from the NATO manual is that with the THROTTLE on IDLE the ignition is running non stop. But without fuel it shouldn't cause any RPM increase isnt ? HERE A TRACK : https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4019946&postcount=9t (the forum didn't let me reupload the track so i'm giving the link of the original post) - Solo flight - Caucasus Flight test : - FIRE light L/R .... PRESS - L throttle .............. OFF - R throttle ............. IDLE - Nose down, reach 350kt - L eng 17rpm | R eng 46 rpm - (ps gain was on oride to retract flap and gain speed more easly, tested with and without just to double check that it wasn't triggering the bug) I did more test not on this track, if the sjpeed drop to 0 IAS, both eng drop to 0 RPM, but asap you gain speed again, OFF eng will gain RPM much slower than the IDLE one. Here some picture of the difference

So we can consider that this RPM difference is a bug then i guess. Thanks for the clarifications guys :) . * I'll report it

Copy thx for the clarification, wasn't sure about it :) So that would mean that, regarding the result of the test maybe The throttle on IDLE : the AMAD will shear off from the engine, maybe the fuel pump too. While the throttle on OFF : would not ? :huh: Is the amad able to rotate on his own with windmill, or does it need the engine.

Sorry for the stupid question but traducing give a result that may not be fully correct so to double check i didn't missunderstood. When you say that it shear, do yu mean that the unit is disconnecting from the AMAD rod letting it rotate freely ? So that what could affect the RPM is if the AMAD still linked to some systems such as the hydraulic etc ?

Here a track. - Both FIRE light pushed, RPM drop - L throttle OFF, R throttle IDLE - nose down to reach/keep 350kt - L RPM went around 12 as supposed while the R was much higher. IDLE_vs_OFF_TEST.trk