Comments from an Eagle pilot

[GGTharos]

At what airspeed/temperature/whatever?

Static thrust (engine sittingon the table, going nowhere) is 23000 lbs plus change, IIRC.

When you start moving, you get more thrust - there's an engine simulator out there that might show you the thrust produced at a given airspeed and altitude, but I don't have the link handy, and I don't know if it is authoritative.

[S77th-GOYA]

Yeah, I'm the one who posted the link originally.

 

Anyone else?

[Mizzy]

How do we know he is a real pilot and not someone ranting about how their favourite plane is poorly modelled?

 

If he is a real pilot, which I doubt, he needs to move on with this 'commie Ruskie ' attitude and realise the world has moved on.

 

I am sorry to say it but the Guy sounds like a prick.

 

Mizzy :(

[Kusch]

Next comments MiG-29 pilot.

 

"Lock On dobrze odwzorowuje prędkości kątowe w zakręcie, udało mi się też "wyciągnąć" takie same wysokości jak w realu podczas wykonania przewrotu, czy immelmana po starcie. Jednak jeżeli normalny lot był zbliżony do rzeczywistego to przekroczenie kątow natarcia i odzysknie właściwych przyprawiało mnie zawsze o wysypkę na lewym policzku. Ni jak miało się to do rzeczywistości, trwało koszmarnie długo i samolot "nie pomagał", a wręcz przeciwnie. W "realu" samolot szybciej "zrzuca" kąty po wychyleniu drążka od siebie i szybciej odzyskuje prędkość (szczegуlnie w pierwszej fazie)."

 

GGTharos pomozesz znowu?

[*Rage*]

I think however, Yo-Yo, that the realistic g-model is too unforgiving. For a combat pilot, it is much harder to black out (as least, so I am told by a combat pilot!)

I think the model is great, but the values need serious tweaking. The way the model is now, you -cannot- fight in an F-15 like they fight it in RL (which is at high G). Also this model does not take a spiky stick into account; it blacks you out the moment you go from 5 to 7 G after a good pull, which I understand is also not right (where's the 6 second buffer?).

 

Here is /a/ source for this: http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/aeromedbriefs/GTIP.ppt

This is a navy (I think Navy, might be USAF) presentation on increasing G-Tolerance.

Please look especially at slides 43-48, and for the buffer, slide 22.

If you need translation or explanation/interpretation, I'll be quite happy to help.

 

Most importantly, I don't think you can black out so easily as you do in LO just because you pulled 9G a short time ago.

 

Remember, a pilot /always/ know when he's going to pull on the stick and increase G's, so he knows when to strain, and that changes how the onset works, as does the G-suit! Practice also increases your tolerance! Pulling G's before combat *INCREASES* not *DECREASES* your G tolerance according to this.

 

I hope you guys look into this, because the way it is now is not tolerable!

 

Ok.....so correct me if im wrong but :-

 

ED sources - real Su/Mig pilots + Aeromedical reports (unspecified) and much hard work (?deliberation)

 

Your sources - What a pilot told you, your own instinct and a powerpoint presentation?

[D-Scythe]

Ok.....so correct me if im wrong but :-

 

ED sources - real Su/Mig pilots + Aeromedical reports (unspecified) and much hard work (?deliberation)

 

Your sources - What a pilot told you, your own instinct and a powerpoint presentation?

 

Do you not see the faulty logic in your post? His pilot IS a USAF pilot (I assume, never can be too sure) - so that matches "real Su/MiG" pilots. The powerpoint presentation IS a military report - at least as good as an aeromedical report. Hard work doesn't count for anything if it's wrong.

 

Next?

[GGTharos]

Ok.....so correct me if im wrong but :-

 

ED sources - real Su/Mig pilots + Aeromedical reports (unspecified) and much hard work (?deliberation)

 

Your sources - What a pilot told you, your own instinct and a powerpoint presentation?

 

Do you have a better source? :)

[GGTharos]

Lockon models rate of turn (or rolls, Kusch?) well, I even managed to pull off the same altitude/maximum as when doing a real Split-S (I think?) or an immelmann right after take-off.

However although normal flight seems modelled well, when you start aproaching critical AoA limits or exceeding them, you always get 'caught in the trap' in LO where you are stuck at that high AoA condition.

It is unrealistically long-winded, the aircraft did not 'help', it made things worse.

In the real thing, the aircraft will dump the AoA much faster if you push the stick forward, and it will regain speed faster.

 

Next comments MiG-29 pilot.

 

"Lock On dobrze odwzorowuje prędkości kątowe w zakręcie, udało mi się też "wyciągnąć" takie same wysokości jak w realu podczas wykonania przewrotu, czy immelmana po starcie. Jednak jeżeli normalny lot był zbliżony do rzeczywistego to przekroczenie kątow natarcia i odzysknie właściwych przyprawiało mnie zawsze o wysypkę na lewym policzku. Ni jak miało się to do rzeczywistości, trwało koszmarnie długo i samolot "nie pomagał", a wręcz przeciwnie. W "realu" samolot szybciej "zrzuca" kąty po wychyleniu drążka od siebie i szybciej odzyskuje prędkość (szczegуlnie w pierwszej fazie)."

 

GGTharos pomozesz znowu?

[Mizzy]

 

Jeez, I've never seen such desperation to lynch somebody just because he dared to criticize the game.:disgust:

 

It's not the criticism, it's the way you do it ! ;)

 

I felt this Guy was griping from a quasi political stance over LOCK ON and not just about an aircrafts performance.

 

Mizzy

[Guest IguanaKing]

Understood Mizzy, but the guy didn't attack anybody on a personal level. ;) That's the part I had a problem with, all of the things said about the guy that weren't even relevant to the discussion. GG seemed to be able to discuss his points with him pretty rationally, without resorting to the personal attacks seen in this thread. That's all I was referring to. :)

[Kusch]

Lockon models rate of turn (or rolls, Kusch?)

 

Turn ;)

[Program2]

Understood Mizzy, but the guy didn't attack anybody on a personal level. ;) That's the part I had a problem with, all of the things said about the guy that weren't even relevant to the discussion. GG seemed to be able to discuss his points with him pretty rationally, without resorting to the personal attacks seen in this thread. That's all I was referring to. :)

 

Exactly my thoughts! Maybe that's why the guy never came (or did he?) to this forum to discuss things.

 

Sometimes people tend to attack those who has something negative to say about Lock On. I understand most of you love (I like it too) the sim but sometimes you need to lay off a bit and look at what he is trying to point across.

 

Real pilot or not he still has the right to express what he thinks. He was invited to this forum remember? Then show some respect just as you would expect from everyone else here to give you.

[hitman]

I think that the reason why everyone is attacking this person is because he mentioned he was a pilot. Now in past experience, everyone has always had this need to prove them wrong. This is just such a case to prove someone wrong. Its not really needed in this case. If he is, he is. If hes not, and hes not pushing it, let it be. Who cares if he is or not?? We all know that what he did say was proven to be true (regarding F-15 dynamics in game and IRL). Theres no point to crucifying people because they say they are something when everyone else believes otherwise.

[Pilotasso]

You are absolutely right. Why punish people instead of adressing the issue?

[Cosmonaut]

Has he really really been treated that badly here? Judging from his comments in the RS forum I think he's more than capable of handling a couple of forum members questioning whether he's a real pilot or not. Personally I lean towards the "not", too many contradictions in his first post but as has already been said, he's not pushing it so who cares.

[*Rage*]

Do you not see the faulty logic in your post? His pilot IS a USAF pilot (I assume, never can be too sure) - so that matches "real Su/MiG" pilots. The powerpoint presentation IS a military report - at least as good as an aeromedical report. Hard work doesn't count for anything if it's wrong.

 

Next?

 

Faulty logic?

 

Do you see a reference anywhere on that powerpoint presentation?

Who is the author?

What sources did the author use?

Who was it presented to?

How was the presentation received?

 

ED have not volunteered their Aeromedical reports or pilot IDs or how much they actually told them but If ED really did put that much effort into G Modelling as they say they did (and i have no reason to disbelieve them) then i would take their sources/references over a random www powerpoint presentation and GG's informal chat with an f15 pilot.

[GGTharos]

That's quite far from a 'random www ppt' ...

It comes from here.

http://www.nomi.med.navy.mil/NAMI/aeromedbriefs/

[SwingKid]

"In the winter of 1954, psychologist Leon Festinger infiltrated a cult led by Marion Keech, a suburban homemaker in Lake City, Minneapolis who claimed to communicate with aliens. Her followers, believing the end of the world was imminent, had become convinced they would be whisked to safety on a space ship. Needless to say, when the prophesied date of destruction arrived, neither apocalypse nor extraterrestrial rescuers materialized. The question that intrigued Festinger was: faced with undeniable evidence, would the cult members renounce their beliefs?

 

As Festinger found in his groundbreaking research on the theory of cognitive dissonance (that uncomfortable state created by two contradictory ideas), exactly he opposite occurred. Rather than admitting to themselves that they had been duped, they inerpreted the failure of the prophecy as a confirmation of their beliefs: the world had been spared because of their faith."

 

Deborah Campbell, "Believers and Deceivers: The Political Psychology of US Power," Adbusters Jan/Feb 2007

 

-SK

[*Rage*]

Do you have a better source? :)

 

Question ought to be do YOU have any better sources for which to make your argument in the face of the developers skepticism.

[504Goon]

Question ought to be do YOU have any better sources for which to make your argument in the face of the developers skepticism.

 

Better than The Naval Operational Medicine Institute?

[*Rage*]

Come on ... you can do better. ;)

 

Im not the one questioning the G models.

 

Care to elaborate on what your F15 pilot (i trust for once on this forum he's not fake?) told you about G tolerances?

[*Rage*]

Better than The Naval Operational Medicine Institute?

 

Ive had a look at that website.

 

Explain to me what there (assuming its bona fide) dissproves the current G modelling realistic model.

[504Goon]

For example the fact, that brains can work up to 6 seconds without oxygen. This means: even more than 9G's instantaneously, sustained less than 6 seconds won't end up in G-LOC.

[GGTharos]

Read the PPT, and then when you have some -specific- questions, we can talk about it. I'm not inclined to put effort to explain anything to you when you've not made an effort to understand the material - your only comeback being doubt as to the veracity of the NAVI. By all means, /call/ them and confirm.

 

They'll explain this much better to you than I can, too, though I'm sure I can do an adequate job - when you stop looking for a fight.

 

And I suggest, if you really want to contradict me, you better come up with a source that does so, rather than the wishy-washy excuse you got yourself stuck to. Otherwise there's really zip, zilch and nada to talk about with you - and I mean that in the most non-offensive (yet blunt), factual manner.

[GGTharos]

I don't know, but can you sing it on key? :D