Feature request: Adjustment of negative G-force physiological effects (Redout)

[Herra Tohtori]

The physiological effects of negative g-forces on vision are currently very much incorrectly modeled in the game.

At the moment, redout starts to onset as early as 0.0g lateral acceleration, which of course is equal to freefall. You start getting a slightly red field of view even when just flying a parabolic arc. There is no possibility that zero-g would cause redouts or any other short-term visual effects.

Even at -1.0 g, there should be no adverse visual effects. Anyone who's hanged upside down from, say, a tree branch or such can corroborate this - you definitely feel the blood rushing to your head, but it doesn't really affect vision. And, of course, flying upside down doesn't really ever seem to be a problem to aerobatic pilots either.

There are two reasons why negative G-forces can cause loss of vision. First one is the lower eyelid being physically drawn into the field of view, blocking it. Second is increased blood pressure causing the blood vessels in the eye to expand.

However, as shown above, the onset threshold of these vision-reducing symptoms should be much higher than currently. I don't really have any data to show on this topic, but certainly the loading needs to be higher than -1.0g; estimating more serious effects starting at -2.0g to -3.0g, with incapacitating effects at about -4.0g.


With sufficiently long exposure to negative G's, there may even be more serious problems such as blood vessels rupturing either in the eyes or in the brain which can lead into a hemorrhagic stroke, but I'm not sure if this would be a good idea to model in a flight sim.

[jameson]

Way off topic but when spawning in a 109g6 the temperature gauge always reads zero, even in the desert. Just another thing that's completely illogical in Il2 and drives me up the wall. Makers of BOS have stated that all weapons effectiiveness in the original Il2 were compromised for the sake of gameplay...
You make good point about redout but don't hold your breath. In 4.13 no doubt we'll see some new wonderweapon (torpedoes that go round in circles, anyone?) but the 109's erla canopy won't be fixed and it's throttle and manifold pressure settings will still be unlike those any 109 seen in real life. The g6 will still be 50kph to slow, I could go on but....

[Pursuivant]

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

However, as shown above, the onset threshold of these vision-reducing symptoms should be much higher than currently. I don't really have any data to show on this topic, but certainly the loading needs to be higher than -1.0g; estimating more serious effects starting at -2.0g to -3.0g, with incapacitating effects at about -4.0g.

I agree. Also, most equipment and techniques used to prevent GLOC due to positive G doesn't work for negative G.

Originally Posted by Herra Tohtori

With sufficiently long exposure to negative G's, there may even be more serious problems such as blood vessels rupturing either in the eyes or in the brain which can lead into a hemorrhagic stroke, but I'm not sure if this would be a good idea to model in a flight sim.

Why not? IL2 already has very similar effects for wounding such as permanent dimming of vision and slowed reaction times. It would be relatively easy to link "wounding" and "heavy wounding" effects to prolonged negative G.

As a related issue, as long as the plane's fuselage remains intact, aircrew don't suffer any damage in a crash, even if they ground loop, flip over, or rapidly decelerate from high speed. Realistically, the sudden deceleration, especially fast lateral acceleration, should cause injury or death due to detachment of internal organs and/or cerebrospinal injuries.