Realistic pilots?

[JG4_Helofly]

That's the question. Do we need more realistic pilots?

Some years ago, there was a thread about pilot fatigue in this forum. I found it interesting and I think it might also be interesting to discuss this again.
What do I mean by realistic pilots? I mean things like pilot fatigue due to continuous high G and very hard manoeuvres.
What I don't like in IL2, is the fact that you can throw your aircraft in any manoeuvre you like without penalty (except for the new G limit). People can constantly pull extrem manoeuvres all day long. And in my opinion, that makes dogfights look unrealistic. Many times you see people ride the grey out limit for extended periodes and still manage to shoot down the enemy with a precise shoot after many wild manoeuvres. I remember a russian pilot interview. The pilot said that after some time at (only) 3G he could barely read the gauges in the cockpit.

My point is: At the moment it is unrealistically easy to shoot down enemys under extrem flight conditions and people tend to turn and spin their aircraft forever when on the defensiv, instead of simply diving away.

I mean, nearly every arcade shooter game has stamina limitations for the player. Some more sofisticated then others. But not our simulation. Why?

Things like that increase the realisme very much. A good exemple is the mod "Project reality" for Battlefield 2. The soldier can't run forever, he can't shoot accurately instantly but has to stand (or lie) still for several seconds, etc.
It's harder but more realistic and more fun. On the other hand we have Il2 with super humans in the cockpit which always have perfect vision and unlimited strength.

My idea would be to simply create a standard pilot modell which would (in addition to the already existing blackout / redout) have things like blurred vision and limited strength when performing extrem manoeuvres for an extended periode of time.

So, that's the basic idea. Now it's your turn, what do you think about that?

[Daniël]

Sounds really good.:grin: One more thing to think about in a dogfight. Don't get too tired!

[Bricks]

As it was pointed out before, pilots already have values like stamina and stuff like that. If you maintain medicore G you are likely to black out as well as if you make a high-G-turn. Also if you already blacked out in a given time before, it's more likely you black out again.

All this is just superficial, granted, but I'm pretty sure that if fatigue is modeled for the aircraft the pilot will not be forgotten.

Just because nothing like that was posted as a definite statement, yet (at least afaik), doesn't mean it won't be there ;)


Just don't expect a healthbar or something.

[Erkki]

Good idea, but

And remember each pilot had his own stamina and limitations on what he could endure. I say you should be able to level up your pilot! I used to have a pokemon game where you could wear a pedometer that would track how much you exercise and you could level up yu pokemon like that. Good idea sounds sweet to me!

...god no.

Last thing needed in a simulation of any kind are "experience points" and/or "levelling up".

Maybe for single player, as an option.

[Sven]

Indeed, leveling up or experience and special unlocks 'n sh*t points are games which are only made to make money, not even to enjoy the content. It causes the "Elitist take over" which I'd rather stay miles and miles away from. Leaderbords on forums is such example, I don't like it at all.



But back to the main thing, I really like your idea Helofly! Fatigue when slamming the stick all over the cockpit for half an hour is quite exhausting, that and keeping track of the enemy, and what not in a serious dogfight

BUT

Fatigue is not the same to every person, it's always different, always. Experience, health ect. All these factors make Fatigue in the game automatically unrealistic, no matter what, it's always different. I think it is too much work to really implement a good working fatigue system. However I have my own fatigue system in real life, flying for hours is quite exhausting for my own eyes, and I start decreasing performance, but that's just me.

[JG4_Helofly]

BUT

Fatigue is not the same to every person, it's always different, always. Experience, health ect. All these factors make Fatigue in the game automatically unrealistic, no matter what, it's always different. I think it is too much work to really implement a good working fatigue system. However I have my own fatigue system in real life, flying for hours is quite exhausting for my own eyes, and I start decreasing performance, but that's just me.

True, fatigue is different for every person, but we also have a standard blackout model for everyone in the game. In RL people react differently to G-forces, but blackout is modeled in the game and no one complaines about it. Why should it be different with fatigue?

[Furio]

In my opinion, we should realistically consider the difference between simulating air combat – as good as it is our beloved simulator – and any attempt at replicating reality, which is basically unattainable with known technology.

As fatigue is not the same for everyone, so it is courage or fear. Flying in a sim, you may be afraid to lose your points, but you never risk anything real, let alone your life. And this makes a huge difference. Playing with a sim, it comes natural to readily accept unreasonable risks for small rewards, this being anything but realistic.
Respectfully, my opinion is: any form of “artificial fatigue” should be avoided, or introduced as an option.

[Sven]

True, fatigue is different for every person, but we also have a standard blackout model for everyone in the game. In RL people react differently to G-forces, but blackout is modeled in the game and no one complaines about it. Why should it be different with fatigue?

Yes that's true as well, but I do believe differences in that are quite small. Still to determine a good fatigue system is too difficult and time consuming to saddle TD up with it. Like a previous post, also fear, adrenaline courage, everything has to do with your fatigue.

Say, You are in an airplane and suddenly you see a fancy enemy coming in on your tail, but you seem to be a tad tired, oh well that's a pity, now I can't move that quick. Of course not, adrenaline rushes in your brain, you slam the stick to the side and when you see the enemy passing in front of you, you engage him and follow him, you start shooting, is it going to hit?, c'mon! c'mon! You will not get tired, it's a natural saver that adrenaline stuff.

The same you find in sports, if you're in a duel, even when very tired and on the egde of turning the odds there's a big chance of you losing, you will forget that you're tired and engage the opponent.

[Seeker]

I just can't wait to see how the red/blue whiners tie themselves up in knots trying to argue thier case while scrupuously trying to avoid inferences to ethnicity or master race..

[ElAurens]

Hence this idea needs to be shelved, permanently.

[MikkOwl]

I strongly support the idea of improving the pilot simulation. At least on a physical level (mental is probably not possible). It moved up to a certain point long time ago and since then there has been barely any improvement.

It is an uncomplicated task. Some kind of system to relay to the gamer how affected from fatigue one is (can be a breathing sound, indicator or graphical effect). Then the effects of fatigue itself: even just temporarily reduced strength or being more prone to greying/blacking out would be a big step forward.

[Coen020]

And remember each pilot had his own stamina and limitations on what he could endure. I say you should be able to level up your pilot! I used to have a pokemon game where you could wear a pedometer that would track how much you exercise and you could level up yu pokemon like that. Good idea sounds sweet to me!

-off topic-
really dude, a pedometer? sounds more like it's short for pedofilemeter.

-on topic-

i also think it would be kinda weird, i mean you control the aircraft but if your 'pilot' is tired and lets your plane crash i can imagine it feels more like he is your stupid copilot who just let YOU crash.

But then again maybe it should be an option that for some players who want to have it, can turn on.

[Sven]

I strongly support the idea of improving the pilot simulation. At least on a physical level (mental is probably not possible). It moved up to a certain point long time ago and since then there has been barely any improvement.

It is an uncomplicated task. Some kind of system to relay to the gamer how affected from fatigue one is (can be a breathing sound, indicator or graphical effect). Then the effects of fatigue itself: even just temporarily reduced strength or being more prone to greying/blacking out would be a big step forward.

Physical and mental are very closely related as I already pointed out, one cannot do without the other, you could take the whole mental part out, of course, but what are you trying to model then? Inhumane behaviour?

And yes coen, it really is a pedometer, if you said that in science class you get a :? from the professor.

[WTE_Galway]

The game should ship with a mini-gym that measures the players physical strength, stamina, reaction times and flexibility.

Then those personalized parameters can be used to tailor the fitness level of the pilot in game to those of the actual player.

One substantial advantage of this is it will get geeky sim players out jogging, lifting weights and doing workouts to get their fitness up to scratch before a big online matchup.

[Ernst]

The idea is not bat but such fatigue system should be implemented carefully. I do not agree a stamina bar in my screen, what a immersion killer. :evil:

[Furio]

I strongly support the idea of improving the pilot simulation...

It is an uncomplicated task. Some kind of system to relay to the gamer how affected from fatigue one is (can be a breathing sound, indicator or graphical effect). Then the effects of fatigue itself: even just temporarily reduced strength or being more prone to greying/blacking out would be a big step forward.

On the contrary, IMHO it is very complicated. Of course, you can lower the onset of blacking out, but how do you model a “reduced strength”? By slowing down control input? By limiting the amount of stick or pedal displacement? By increasing force feedback?
And how can you slow down quick reflexes?

[Sven]

The game should ship with a mini-gym that measures the players physical strength, stamina, reaction times and flexibility.

Then those personalized parameters can be used to tailor the fitness level of the pilot in game to those of the actual player.

One substantial advantage of this is it will get geeky sim players out jogging, lifting weights and doing workouts to get their fitness up to scratch before a big online matchup.

You just solved the 'PC gaming is unhealthy' problem hahaha:grin: , way to go for futuristic sims!

[TeeJay82]

Dude its a game :O games are made to be enjoyed while you play them... what do you want next? a ingame need to land for a toilet break after an hour of flight?

[JG4_Helofly]

On the contrary, IMHO it is very complicated. Of course, you can lower the onset of blacking out, but how do you model a “reduced strength”? By slowing down control input? By limiting the amount of stick or pedal displacement? By increasing force feedback?
And how can you slow down quick reflexes?

In a way, we already have "fatigue" in game. When the pilot is wounded, full deflection of the control surfaces is no longer possible.

I agree with you Furio. It would not be easy to implement such a system. That's why it would have to be simplified like the "wounded model".
For exemple: After several minutes of dogfight and high G manoeuvres, the pilot would progressively loose some percent of strength resulting in less rudder deflection. There would be a lower limit. Say 75% of total strength. After some time flying "normal" maoeuvers, the strength would go up again.

The idea I had behind all this was not to try simulating the human body and his brain to the last detail. The idea is to make aircombat less extreme and therefore more realistic. People would start to think more before engaging. They would gently climb after the dive and not try to slow from 700 to 300 km/h in one hard immelmann turn in order to get quickly behind the enemy flying low and slow. At the moment, the only limit is the structural limit of the airplane, and people fly accordingly.

But of course, it would not be perfect and arbitrary, but at least we would see more interesting combat with people having a chance to fight in inferior planes against better planes with pilots who only know "stick back!"

[Skoshi Tiger]

Flying at altitude involves exposure to very low temperatures. A CSIRO study found people who are exposed exteme low temperatures for prolonged periods shiver more than people unaccustomed to those temperatures. It's the bodies natural adaption to cold.

I think this should be included as the more you shiver the more fatuigued you become.

This could be easily modeled in the sim through a calculation based on the number of flying hours that the have done multiplied by the altitude that you have been flying at times a modifier = the number of ice blocks you need to put in your underpants before each flight!

Why have do we need to simulate physical effects when we can easily recreate the actual effect?

Cheers! ;)

[ElAurens]

I really am glad Oleg is in charge here and not you guys...

No one would buy this sim if you lot were turned loose to change it at your whim.

:rolleyes:

[MikkOwl]

Physical and mental are very closely related as I already pointed out, one cannot do without the other, you could take the whole mental part out, of course, but what are you trying to model then? Inhumane behaviour?
There is plenty you can simulate that does not rely on mental. No amount of determination in the world will stop you from blacking out at sustained 10G. Just the same - get exhausted enough and your strength will diminish. It is more humane to model this than not to.

I really am glad Oleg is in charge here and not you guys...

No one would buy this sim if you lot were turned loose to change it at your whim.

:rolleyes:
Assuming we dismiss the probably not genuine suggestions, I find it difficult to believe you cannot see how you (probably) accept and even desire a whole range of the simulation of a large amount of complex systems, including G-loc, wounding, bleeding, wind, turbulence, complex damage model, torque effects, structural limits, limited munitions, limited fuel, yet see (the option of) fatigue simulation as something no one could possibly ever want except lunatics at the fringe. I see it as just another piece of a big, complex puzzle.

[WTE_Galway]

This could be easily modeled in the sim through a calculation based on the number of flying hours that the have done multiplied by the altitude that you have been flying at times a modifier = the number of ice blocks you need to put in your underpants before each flight!

Why have do we need to simulate physical effects when we can easily recreate the actual effect?

Cheers! ;)


For open cockpit planes a large fan pointed into your face will suffice for wind chill. Though if its raining you may want to get a relative/friend/partner to spray water in your face occasionally.

For added realism have them hit you with a bat on bumpy landings and set fire to your trousers if your plane catches fire in game.

[swiss]

I really am glad Oleg is in charge here and not you guys...

No one would buy this sim if you lot were turned loose to change it at your whim.

:rolleyes:


http://hooniverse.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Homer.jpg

lol

[Splitter]

The game should ship with an inflatable collar and automatic air pump. Pull too many G's and......

On a serious note, the whole "leveling up" thing is one of the worst trends ever to hit the video game market.

Splitter

[LukeFF]

I really am glad Oleg is in charge here and not you guys...

Some people here are also glad you aren't in charge.

[TheGrunch]

Options are always nice. I think most of these ideas are cool (well, the more sensible and practical fatigue-related ones, anyway). For the 50m furballers it would just exaggerate the already amusing effect of new planes being fed into the meat-grinder, gradually getting damaged, lower, and slower and also more tired than the opposition, and then being destroyed by the latest newcomers. I'd quite enjoy the amusement to be honest. :)

Either way, it's not a terribly difficult suggestion to plan a sensible implementation of, I just dread to think how anyone would arrive at any hard numbers for it. Have a little green bar at the bottom of the screen that depletes (slowly) but at a rate that varies exponentially depending upon how many Gs you are pulling, and gradually reduce the maximum stick force allowed to the pilot from its usual 50lbs and their blackout G-tolerance from its usual er...however many Gs it is (5?) - up to a reasonable point. Then for good measure, make it a difficulty option, because sometimes you just don't need the hassle, haha.

Splitter, I totally agree about 'leveling'. It's ruined several games or at least constituted an annoyance during gameplay. Especially in online games! Let the effects of player experience tell by allowing them to perform every action from the start, just make their successes dependent upon how good they are at doing so in the sense of planning and hand-to-eye coordination! All of these FPS games with 'levels' and 'feats' are just weird.

[Furio]

Options are always nice.

Here I agree wholeheartedly. “Option” is the word I like, since it protects me from changes I don’t like.
Generally speaking, the burden of the proof belongs to the people who ask for changing, and all aspects must be duly considered. For example, if you factor fatigue, you must also factor rest. And how do you implement rest? Referring to the calendar? If my pilot named Joe Dumb is fatigued today, I let it on the ground and fly with my second pilot, Jim Foggy. Or, if I fly just once a week, I’ll never have long-term fatigue effects. But, if I fly for Luftwaffe in 1945, or in VVS in 1942, I should not be allowed rest, so, what?
Then, we should not focus exclusively on online, as most Il2 players fly offline. In that case, fatigue must be introduced for AI pilots, with the same considerations about resting time and active pilots available.

Another point: if we talk of realism, we should consider that in real life prolonged high-g combats were a rarity. Most dogfights lasted few minutes, just seconds sometimes, before opponents got separated.
If our goal is realism at all cost, we should address this first. But we really want long and boring flights with just seconds of frantic action, and then an equally boring returning home? You can easily see, here, that “realism” is a word that should be used with caution.

[JoeA]

I really am glad Oleg is in charge here and not you guys...

No one would buy this sim if you lot were turned loose to change it at your whim.

:rolleyes:

Thought they already have. ;)

[Baev]

Hi all, this is my first post on this forum.

Very good idea, at current situation the pilot can slam the stick like insane, until landing. But planes are different, some have light stick, some heavier (I suppose), hense adding such option will start mass whine.
Also this issue is directly linked to another, trimming (trim cheat). Examle: if the pilot is tired, he wouldn't be able to get full stick/pedals deflection, well, it's not necessary, there is a trimm(cheat):cool:.You can instantly switch trim to possitive/negative dead end. Poor I-16 pilots!
So, trimming issue must be solved.

Off topic
Other aspects of tream cheat, IMHO:
-reduces take off/ landing speed
-reduces drag (energy bleeding) during turning, hence Bf-109 is an exellent t&b fighter
-reduces turn time
Off topic

Sorry for bad english.

[Feathered_IV]

Some aspects of pilot health should certainly be incorporated into the game.
Oxygen deprivation deserves as much of a place as gee-effects. It would add a lot to gameplay too. Visual impairment such as an almost drunken, wandering gaze or spots in front of the eyes would fit well with the onset of hypoxia. Turning up your oxygen flow to Emergency while in combat to get a slight edge in clarity of view while under gee loads would also be a logical feature. As would the consequences of a damaged or depleted oxygen supply.

[winny]

I agree that XP would be a bad thing, because you actually do gain experience in RL whilst playing. You learn what works and what get's you killed, you become better at spotting your targets..etc.

Having said that I wouldn't mind a heart rate monitor or something to slightly humanise the experience. Adrenaline only staves off fatigue for so long and I read accounts from USAF WW2 pilots where they literally wore thier opponent down.

Also there could be longer blackouts because I've also read a few accounts where pilots blacked out then came round completley alone in the sky.

Read recentley that one Spitfire pilot blacked out every time he dive bombed.

[Seeker]

I think random failures of organs would be in line with the new difficulty options.

Thinks like a probability of your lungs filing with useless froth if your pressurized cockpit is pierced by a stray gunner's round, or a random chance of tearing your liver every time you pull up from a dive bomb attack.

Still, it's going to be hard to control the modders, Was Rudel disabled, or could he pull more G on pull out?

Did Bader secretly enjoy the heart/lung cheat coupled with the leg mod?

Mind you, with no 6DOF it's going to be hard to check the correct leg is missing, don't you think?

[JG4_Helofly]

... Adrenaline only staves off fatigue for so long and I read accounts from USAF WW2 pilots where they literally wore thier opponent down.

Also there could be longer blackouts because I've also read a few accounts where pilots blacked out then came round completley alone in the sky.

Read recentley that one Spitfire pilot blacked out every time he dive bombed.

That's the thing. I also read pilot accounts (Hartmann, Meimberg) who described that some pilots flew only with their muscles because they were stronger then average and could win a fight against less fit pilots in dogfight.
Of course in the simulation there would be only one fatigue model for all, but this clearly shows that fatigue was an issue in combat and also important from the tactical point of view.

IMO it would already make a difference if we had some minor changes like faster blackout combined with slight penaltys in controle movements so that you can't move the stick with 100% strength when on the greyout limit.

But let's see how blackout will be modeled in SOW. Maybe it will be different from what we have now.

[Ltbear]

well dunno about the pilot realism, but crew members who call out enemy planes would be a step towards realism....let us start there and then move on

;)

LTbear

[TheGrunch]

Examle: if the pilot is tired, he wouldn't be able to get full stick/pedals deflection, well, it's not necessary, there is a trimm(cheat):cool:.You can instantly switch trim to possitive/negative dead end. Poor I-16 pilots!
So, trimming issue must be solved.
But this is a realistic advantage of using a trim.:confused::confused::confused:

[winny]

well dunno about the pilot realism, but crew members who call out enemy planes would be a step towards realism....let us start there and then move on

;)

LTbear

Good point. You've got to hope that the A.I plays by the rules.. The fewer the 'No way could he do\see that!' moments the better.

I wouldn't mind if bomber crews gained xp and got better shots, could spot enemys from further out, quicker reloads, it'd be nice to get a crew through a campaign and have some reward for doing so.

[Furio]

Also there could be longer blackouts because I've also read a few accounts where pilots blacked out then came round completley alone in the sky.

Read recentley that one Spitfire pilot blacked out every time he dive bombed.

You can read everything and the contrary of everything, because human beings are different from each other. I have another question. Fatigue reduces the ability of making the right decision (like fear) and increases the chances of making mistakes, and this is probably its single most important influence, much more than tired muscles. But how can this be implemented to a sim pilot that fears no evil and is not actually fatigued?

The more this whole thing is discussed, and the more – in my opinion – it reveals its complexity. It can be surely said that the human body is far more complex than any WWII fighter, not to mention the huge complexity of human mind.
Anyway, I would want to summarize my opinion: I don’t think that any of the previous proposals would really makes a more “realistic pilot”. They simply would add arbitrary difficulties, as in World of Warcraft’s kind of games.
For these reasons, I ask TD to not proceed with any such additions, unless they are implemented as options.
Thank you.

[Blackdog_kt]

True, fatigue is different for every person, but we also have a standard blackout model for everyone in the game. In RL people react differently to G-forces, but blackout is modeled in the game and no one complaines about it. Why should it be different with fatigue?

I also agree with this. There could be some slightly randomized variation (small stuff, like for example +/- half a G or so before the onset of a blackout/redout) to simulate not only different pilots but the same pilot on different days. It could also probably be set by a mission parameter, for example if i'm flying a scripted campaign and the mission builder wants to simulate my pilot having spent the previous night in the pub and staying up at night, etc, but this would be mostly used in single player situations. In online scenarios, most people would object to having even half a G of disadvantage before blacking out so it would revert to the system we already have.

A similar game mechanic could be applied to fatigue in general and not only blackouts/redouts.
The thing is, if some people want more variety then some other people will complain if they are on the disadvantaged side of this, so maybe it could be a difficulty option: standard fatigue or randomized fatigue (within certain limits like in the example above).

I don't really expect to see this in IL2 at this point in time because TD already has a load of other features they are working on. However, it's a good subject in general and it might provide useful ideas for the devs to implement in SoW at some point down the line, so i fully support it.


I just can't wait to see how the red/blue whiners tie themselves up in knots trying to argue thier case while scrupuously trying to avoid inferences to ethnicity or master race..

Hahahah good point actually :-P


The game should ship with a mini-gym that measures the players physical strength, stamina, reaction times and flexibility.

Then those personalized parameters can be used to tailor the fitness level of the pilot in game to those of the actual player.

One substantial advantage of this is it will get geeky sim players out jogging, lifting weights and doing workouts to get their fitness up to scratch before a big online matchup.

Another good one, this thread is turning into a gold mine.

To get back on topic however:

In a way, we already have "fatigue" in game. When the pilot is wounded, full deflection of the control surfaces is no longer possible.

I agree with you Furio. It would not be easy to implement such a system. That's why it would have to be simplified like the "wounded model".
For exemple: After several minutes of dogfight and high G manoeuvres, the pilot would progressively loose some percent of strength resulting in less rudder deflection. There would be a lower limit. Say 75% of total strength. After some time flying "normal" maoeuvers, the strength would go up again.

The idea I had behind all this was not to try simulating the human body and his brain to the last detail. The idea is to make aircombat less extreme and therefore more realistic. People would start to think more before engaging. They would gently climb after the dive and not try to slow from 700 to 300 km/h in one hard immelmann turn in order to get quickly behind the enemy flying low and slow. At the moment, the only limit is the structural limit of the airplane, and people fly accordingly.

But of course, it would not be perfect and arbitrary, but at least we would see more interesting combat with people having a chance to fight in inferior planes against better planes with pilots who only know "stick back!"

This, 100 times over. Our blackouts and "pilot wounded" effects are not a 100% realistic, custom-tailored experience...they are a case of "apply this across the board and let users deal with it the way they see fit" situation. Modeling of other effects that can be detrimental to a pilot, like G fatigue or hypoxia, could be the same. We don't have blackout bars or a 2d pilot figure showing messages like "left lung: 29%" whenever an enemy round connects with the cockpit, all we have is "player:wounded" with a red tinted screen and reduced control forces applied and "player:killed" with a black screen and it does the job just fine.
In a similar fashion heavy breathing and a "player:fatigued" message in the hud would be enough to know you are pushing your virtual body too far (just like the airframe creaks and groans under damage) or a darkening screen with a gasping breath sound could signify the onset of hypoxia.

So, i tend to see the arguments about fatigue modeling being overly complex as a diversion for the community to focus on in an effort to discredit the feature as non feasible. But why?

See, iI get a feeling that whenever someone comes up with an idea to introduce some progress into the standard features of a flight sim that even slightly upsets long standing gameplay habits (not fairness or customizability, just plain gamer habits), there's always a few people who will make fun of it either because they think it's technically dodgy to achieve, or suggest so because they don't want to adapt their gaming style. Yes, simulations are gaming too by the way.

It happened with the debates about better complex engine management in the past, it happened relatively recently when people where asking for a clickable interface for SoW (not for the interface per se, but to be able to model and interface with secondary yet important aircraft subsystems in the sim without the need for 2 extra keyboards worth of keybinding commands) and so on.
Just like people said "the mouse is clunky to use in combat" (when it was explicitly stated that it would be an option for secondary aircraft controls and keyboard/HOTAS commands could also be used in the proposed feature) because they didn't want to learn how to operate a few extra subsystems to the expense of jumping right into the action, today we see people claiming that fatigue is difficult to model because they won't be able to yank and bank for as long as they have made a habit of doing so (just for the record however, for SoW Oleg took the side of the "pro-innovation" crowd and we'll get both the aircraft systems modeled in detail and a choice between keyboard/HOTAS and mouse to control them), when in fact modeling fatigue in IL2 would essentially be a combination of already existing features.

We already have blackouts, we have limited pilot forces when the player is wounded and we recently got progressive lowering of airframe limits with the G-stress feature in 4.10, so it's not like the wheel will have to be reinvented or anything. Take the existing airframe G-stress model with some tweaking of the limits and substitute airframe limits for pilot blackout and force limits, then reverse and possibly tweak the same mathematical model to simulate the pilot regaining his strength/resting during the idle portions of the flight and it's good enough for a 10 year old gaming engine.

Does it take work to do? Sure it does. Does it need more work than other equally important features, like TD's AI tweaks (wind correction, AI not seeing through clouds, etc)? I seriously doubt it. I'm not demanding anything, however i'm strongly debating in favor of it being doable because if everytime someone who proposed a cool new feature decided to listen to the "can't be done" brigade, we wouldn't have any need for the cool guys in TD because we'd still be flying secret weapons of the luftwaffe. It's called progress and it's generally a good thing ;)

I think all the talk about it being overly complex to achieve or the need for it to be ultra realistic from the get go is just smoke and mirrors to prevent it from happening because then, oh noes, we would have to adapt to something new! :-P

The funny thing in all this is that for some reason, the same people who argue against injecting a bit of extra challenge in our hobby via such new features are usually proud of flying full switch or high difficulty settings in general. Well, full switch in my first sims (secret weapons of the luftwaffe and red baron) isn't even close to full arcade in IL2 and full switch in IL2 will probably be like 70% difficulty in SoW, just because of all the extra subsystems that SoW will model.

And before someone says they don't want others to force a change on their gameplay habits, nobody is going to force anyone to play a certain way. The devs have a proven track record of providing separate on/off options for each such feature. Don't like blackouts or bullet drop? Turn off blackouts and realistic gunnery and you're good to go.

It's actually dead simple. If a standard fatigue tolerance was modeled for IL2 pilots, sooner or later it would be something as ordinary as blackouts, bullet drop or other fundamental in-game physics like realistic landings and damage on/off that the user can either disable, or choose to use and learn to work around.

I think people tend to focus too much on being proud of seeing that "100% difficulty" number and miss the big picture, which is how much harder reality is than that artificial 100%. If the devs can do it and there are people who will enjoy it, i say give them such a feature and let those who dislike it turn it off in their options.

[winny]

You can read everything and the contrary of everything, because human beings are different from each other. I have another question. Fatigue reduces the ability of making the right decision (like fear) and increases the chances of making mistakes, and this is probably its single most important influence, much more than tired muscles. But how can this be implemented to a sim pilot that fears no evil and is not actually fatigued?

The more this whole thing is discussed, and the more – in my opinion – it reveals its complexity. It can be surely said that the human body is far more complex than any WWII fighter, not to mention the huge complexity of human mind.
Anyway, I would want to summarize my opinion: I don’t think that any of the previous proposals would really makes a more “realistic pilot”. They simply would add arbitrary difficulties, as in World of Warcraft’s kind of games.
For these reasons, I ask TD to not proceed with any such additions, unless they are implemented as options.
Thank you.

Just because you can't model something 100% accurately dosn't mean it shouldn't be even considered.. Otherwise there would be no IL-2.

Why have blackouts at all?
And any suggestions made on the forum should be optional. Relax.

[Baev]

TheGrunch

But this is a realistic advantage of using a trim.

My opinion is different. IMO the only purpose of trims is reduction of muscle force needed to control aircraft.I'm not a pilot, but in RL trimming take some time, especially from dead end to opposite dead end. So it seems impossible to use trims during dogfight. In the game it's possible to switch trim for a split second.

[KG26_Alpha]

As it stands now the pilot can bleed out and as he does the forces applied to the control surfaces are reduced until you cant move anything and your screen goes black.

Some variation of these could be used for fatigue as its already in IL2 some "tweaking" could be tested :)




.

[JG4_Helofly]

I agree with Blackdog. Some players are affraid of new features because it would mean a change of habit.

Another thing is the often mentioned complexity of modeling fatigue. Well, if we wanted we could start talking about the complexity of blackouts/redouts. I bet that if this feature wouldn't already be in the game now, people would say: "But it's too complex, we would have to model blood pressure in different conditions, the ability of the pilot to use the right breathing techniques, the angle of the seat (important for the fw190), G-suits for some late war fighters etc."

You see? Everything in this game is simplified and most features are not even close to perfect. FM, DM, weather, weapons, etc. The list is endless. If everything would have to be 100% perfect, we wouldn't play il2 now.

I understand the scepticism, but I think that we need such a basic limitation if we want to have a realistic combat simulation. The human body is an important limitation in arial combat and can simply not be dismissed.

[Untamo]

Good idea! Maybe it would get some sense in the T&B types :)

-Untamo

[TheGrunch]

My opinion is different. IMO the only purpose of trims is reduction of muscle force needed to control aircraft.I'm not a pilot, but in RL trimming take some time, especially from dead end to opposite dead end. So it seems impossible to use trims during dogfight. In the game it's possible to switch trim for a split second.

There has been a delay on trims in the game since early 4.0x, IIRC. Try it on the ground, you can see it takes a couple of seconds to go from stop to stop even if it's set on a slider, which is perfectly reasonable. Anyway, mainly what I was replying to was this part.

Examle: if the pilot is tired, he wouldn't be able to get full stick/pedals deflection, well, it's not necessary, there is a trimm(cheat)
It's not a cheat to be able to get a greater degree of control deflection than you are physically able to pull from your current trim point by using a trim. Trim essentially moves the zero stick-force point around within the bounds of control deflection.

[Baev]

There has been a delay on trims in the game since early 4.0x ...

Yes, I'm wrong...:roll:
About energy bleeding.... IMO trims can't reduce it.

I have read some veteran interviews, they don't mention about trims use during combat.

[Furio]

Just because you can't model something 100% accurately dosn't mean it shouldn't be even considered.. Otherwise there would be no IL-2.

Why have blackouts at all?
And any suggestions made on the forum should be optional. Relax.

I’m relaxed, thank you!:grin:

But you should notice that none of my objections and questions received any answer or reply, and that, at the same time, the list of complications asked to TD is piling up. I simply stated clearly my preference.

I understand that everything in a sim is not a replica of life, but all the requests I’ve read so far (with the sole possible exception of blackout tweaking) are unrealistic (in my opinion) so I can’t see how they can make a more realistic pilot. On the contrary, I see them as an arbitrary list of “health and power” such as you can find in a MMORPG.

Anyway, all request are legitimate. Peace!

[swiss]

It's not a cheat to be able to get a greater degree of control deflection than you are physically able to pull from your current trim point by using a trim. Trim essentially moves the zero stick-force point around within the bounds of control deflection.

I could be wrong but I lived under the impression that in this game the trim function is actually added on top of the max deflection.

If the trim "cheat" works at low speed too I'm correct, if not, I'm wrong.


I have read some veteran interviews, they don't mention about trims use during combat.


Maybe because they were lacking the needed, additional hand? ;)




Stamina:

I really like the thought of an ingame ace with the stamina of an Olympic Athlete - while in real life there's just a fat moron sitting in front of the pc with a bowl of chips next to him.

[Wutz]

I could be wrong but I lived under the impression that in this game the trim function is actually added on top of the max deflection.

If the trim "cheat" works at low speed too I'm correct, if not, I'm wrong.




Maybe because they were lacking the needed, additional hand? ;)




Stamina:

I really like the thought of an ingame ace with the stamina of an Olympic Athlete - while in real life there's just a fat moron sitting in front of the pc with a bowl of chips next to him.

http://i107.photobucket.com/albums/m290/RSS-Martin/Comics/fat_mcdonalds.jpg

[Furio]

So, i tend to see the arguments about fatigue modeling being overly complex as a diversion for the community to focus on in an effort to discredit the feature as non feasible. But why?

I think all the talk about it being overly complex to achieve or the need for it to be ultra realistic from the get go is just smoke and mirrors to prevent it from happening because then, oh noes, we would have to adapt to something new! :-P


This is a gentle and complicated variation of an “ad hominem” argument. :) Instead of discuss opinions and different point of view, let’s talk of the “can’t be done brigade”, “smoke screens” and people afraid of anything new. It’s not upsetting me that much, but I don’t think it does that much good to a productive discussion either.
And, in the end, as I said many times, if it’s an option, go for it, I have no objections at all!
Cheers. :grin:

[TheGrunch]

I have read some veteran interviews, they don't mention about trims use during combat.
Normally, trim use in combat is only mentioned in reference to dive pull-outs (sometimes not so favourably), which is precisely the sort of time when you'd be limited by your own strength, although I suspect that many pilots preferred not to take the second hand off the stick during these manoeuvres to fiddle with trims.
However I believe Bud Anderson stated that for the P-51 in particular trim use was a constant process, even in combat.
I could be wrong but I lived under the impression that in this game the trim function is actually added on top of the max deflection.
I could be wrong, but as far as I remember, this is not the case. At least, if you move the stick to max deflection on the ground and then dial in full trim in that direction, you will not see the elevator move further.

[swiss]

Here's guy who mentions trim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKnxTA50hb8

[Flanker35M]

S!

Finnish ace Kyösti Karhila mentioned that he used trim in Bf109G to start the turn better,they called it the "ace trick". Propably depended on pilot in any air force how much he used trim, if at all, during combat.

[ElAurens]

Some people here are also glad you aren't in charge.

Well, we are all entitled to our opinion sir.


Some here forget that.

[Blackdog_kt]

This is a gentle and complicated variation of an “ad hominem” argument. :) Instead of discuss opinions and different point of view, let’s talk of the “can’t be done brigade”, “smoke screens” and people afraid of anything new. It’s not upsetting me that much, but I don’t think it does that much good to a productive discussion either.
And, in the end, as I said many times, if it’s an option, go for it, I have no objections at all!
Cheers. :grin:

I admit i was a bit blunt, mainly because i was in a bit of a hurry to word my previous post carefully. Luckily, Helofly addressed this for me.

I agree with Blackdog. Some players are affraid of new features because it would mean a change of habit.

Another thing is the often mentioned complexity of modeling fatigue. Well, if we wanted we could start talking about the complexity of blackouts/redouts. I bet that if this feature wouldn't already be in the game now, people would say: "But it's too complex, we would have to model blood pressure in different conditions, the ability of the pilot to use the right breathing techniques, the angle of the seat (important for the fw190), G-suits for some late war fighters etc."

You see? Everything in this game is simplified and most features are not even close to perfect. FM, DM, weather, weapons, etc. The list is endless. If everything would have to be 100% perfect, we wouldn't play il2 now.

I understand the scepticism, but I think that we need such a basic limitation if we want to have a realistic combat simulation. The human body is an important limitation in arial combat and can simply not be dismissed.

That was exactly my point. I'm not trying to dismiss anyone's gaming habits or preferred difficulty settings, just trying to make a point (admittedly in a bit of a blunt fashion this time around) that instead of expecting instant perfection we could work within the game limitations to enrich the gameplay experience one little step at a time. Then, as people gradually come to grips with the restrictions it imposes on their habits and learn to work around it, it simply becomes one more difficulty option. :grin:

I remember a few years ago (maybe on the ubi forums) a player posting about setting up his grandfather for a mission against a couple of P-38s. He gave the guy the same 109G variant that he used to fly in real life back in the war and sat down to record his observations.
What he said was that his grandfather was flying very cautiously, to the point that the player asked him "they can't wrestle a clear advantage from you but you are not pushing them either, when are you going to actually attack?". Well, the old guy's reply was "the way he's constantly maneuvering all over the place, he'll be too tired to push any real Gs in a few minutes...that's when i will attack". ;)

Mind you, this was not coming from a top ace pilot to be considered a "pro" trick, just one of the thousands of regular airmen who fought in the war and thought that "if it makes me tired to fly like this, then it must also wear the other guy out too", so it leads me to believe it was a very real consideration in combat.

Is the lack of fatigue modeling something that prevents me from enjoying IL2? Definitely not, actually i have started flying IL2 again after a while along with a friend of mine who's making a come back to flight sims and i'm having a blast flying coops with him.
Do i consider it highest priority material? Again, no, it's just a little something extra that would be nice to have and i'm not going to post a direct request to TD to work on such a feature. They are already working for free on a lot of stuff i like and i'm not going to be an ungrateful whiner to them.
Is it doable if someone wants to work on it? Definitely, since it would be a combination of already existing features and game mechanics.

To tell you the truth, i don't even expect to see it in IL2. However, with the new series coming up i think it's good that we all discuss new possibilities to up the ante and challenge during its life, once again not by making demands and expecting certain features on the release of the first version but by putting ideas forward that the developers might be interested in implementing for later patches and updates. Of course, all should ideally be optional so the people who don't like a feature can turn it off. I'm not here to rain on anyone's parade, tell them how to play their game or degrade the value of their personally desired challenge level and entertainment, just trying to enhance my own enjoyment of the game without forcing it on anybody else.

In fact, i think there's no real rivalry at all between us, even if we do at times have to compete for a piece of limited developer resources and time to be devoted to our favorite subject because that's where the developer steps in to decide what to work on. Well, i trust the developers to focus equally on a broad spectrum of enhancements to keep everyone reasonably happy, instead of keeping half of us 100% happy and the rest of us constantly frustrated, so i think that throwing ideas around is definitely positive, no matter how far fetched some of them might seem. Hope that clears it up :grin: