RED RAF blackouts

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

Is the game programed so that players flying Spitys or Hurris experience blackout much quicker then pilots flying 109s in particular?

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Is the game programed so that players flying Spitys or Hurris experience blackout much quicker then pilots flying 109s in particular?

Blackouts are programmed based on the amount of G's generated as well a pilot position.

Spitfires can generate more G in a high speed turn than 109's as a result of a number of design factors... wingloading, elevator design, aerofoil used, etc... i.e. they capable of turning tighter at high speeds... so it is easier to black out in a Spitfire. There is a difference between 109E's and 109F's... with the F models being more capable of generating G's at high speed. (part of the whole re-design which gave the F model better high speed maneuverability)

Later models of the Spitfire had adjustments made to the elevators to modulate their effectiveness and reduce the possibility of excessive G's causing catastrophic damage to the wing structure.

So in answer to your question... no, Spitfires pilots do not experience the onset of blackout at a lower level of G loading than 109's.

However, because it is easier for a Spitfire pilot to generate G's at high speeds, then it is common for them to be turning at a higher G loading than a 109 pilot.... hence it is easy to get into blackout problems.

Many pilots use what is called 'Lead Pursuit' when following a 109.... that is they place their gunsight ahead of the 109 they are following. When they do that, it means they are turning tighter than the 109... turning inside its turn radius... and therefore generating more G loading. If the speed of the Spitfire is high, blackout will result.

It is often better to use 'Lag Pursuit' in high speed maneuver, whereby the pursuing aircraft places its gunsight behind the target aircraft, thereby meaning he is approximately matching the turn radius of his target... he can then tighten up the turn later, once the speed of the maneuver slows a bit.... thereby avoiding blacking himself out.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

It was fairly common on the ATAG servers for veteran 109E pilots to use G loading and blackout to escape Spitfires on their tail.

They would dive to approximately 700 kmh speed, then pull up at maximum elevator. At this speed, the 109E's design limitations meant it could not generate enough G for the pilot to blackout... or even do damage.

However, if, as was typical of a rookie Spitfire pilot following, the Spitfire tried to maintain a lead pursuit and pulled up at maximum elevator, the pilot would either rip his wings off or blackout... putting him at the 109E's mercy.

Of course a veteran Spitfire pilot would limit himself to a lag pursuit, limit his G's and follow the 109 easily without blackout and close the distance to the kill.

To paraphrase a certain Shaolin Master: “... you have begun to learn Young Grasshopper.”

[Tibsun]

You did ask this question over a year ago already
https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...33471&p=357682


and this was the conclusion we agreed to generally that the spit indeed would black out earlier because of the seat/leg position and would be modelled in CloD.
https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...l=1#post357682
+
https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.c...l=1#post357693

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

Yes I did ask this question before and found the replies then unconvincing, I don't believe that the seating position in the spitty and 109 were so dissimilar to account for the significant difference in Blackout threshold, I have read some accounts of pilots in a chase scenario whether spitty or 109 blacking out trying to get a lead on an aircraft in a tight turn.
Whatever the reasons, Historic or scientific, for the current Blackout settings, It is my opinion, not particularly historic or scientific, that the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed.

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

Yes I did ask this question before and found the replies then unconvincing, I don't believe that the seating position in the spitty and 109 were so dissimilar to account for the significant difference in Blackout threshold, I have read some accounts of pilots in a chase scenario whether spitty or 109 blacking out trying to get a lead on an aircraft in a tight turn.
Whatever the reasons, Historic or scientific, for the current Blackout settings, It is my opinion, not particularly historic or scientific, that the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed.

[Tibsun]

Yes I did ask this question before and found the replies then unconvincing, I don't believe that the seating position in the spitty and 109 were so dissimilar to account for the significant difference in Blackout threshold, I have read some accounts of pilots in a chase scenario whether spitty or 109 blacking out trying to get a lead on an aircraft in a tight turn.
Whatever the reasons, Historic or scientific, for the current Blackout settings, It is my opinion, not particularly historic or scientific, that the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed.

Wasn't saying a opinion but I actually wanted to point out that Mikes recent comment saying there shouldn't be a difference is contradicting with his comment agreeing to Karaya on the older thread.

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

Just one more point/question on Blackout thresholds and then I promise(with fingers and legs crossed) I'll leave it alone for a few months, . Does anyone know if AI have a blackout threshold programmed ?

[DerDa]

Just one more point/question on Blackout thresholds and then I promise(with fingers and legs crossed) I'll leave it alone for a few months, . Does anyone know if AI have a blackout threshold programmed ?

The more Gs a 110 pulls, the deadlier their sniper gunners get.

[GANIX]

Deleted by GANIX.

[DerDa]

Your contribution is just as helpful as the German 'TFS FLASHCARDS'.

Thank you very much, always glad to be of assistance.

[RAF74_Buzzsaw]

Maybe I did not make myself as clear as I should.

There is an effect for the fact the Bf-109's seat position has the pilot in a more reclined position.

There is no effect difference in terms of how the G loading is applied in the game on German or British aircraft. 6G is the same whether it is a Spitfire or Bf-109.

[ATAG_Oskar]

Just one more point/question on Blackout thresholds and then I promise(with fingers and legs crossed) I'll leave it alone for a few months, . Does anyone know if AI have a blackout threshold programmed ?

AI pilots will try not to fly into blackout or red out situations but sometimes they verge on it. If you hop in the cockpit and watch the AI fly in a dogfight sometimes you will see a little red or black. Exactly as if a human were flying.

[Karaya]

Maybe I did not make myself as clear as I should.

There is an effect for the fact the Bf-109's seat position has the pilot in a more reclined position.

There is no effect difference in terms of how the G loading is applied in the game on German or British aircraft. 6G is the same whether it is a Spitfire or Bf-109.

What kind of ballpark are we talking in regard to the effect of the reclined seat? Cant really be more than 0.5G at the very most, given that the earliest of G suits provided an edge of ~1.0G.

[Baffin]

Excessive nose-up trim is what causes me to over-G the Spitfire. When I am careless and trim slower than 244 MPH IN COMBAT, I can absent mindedly release the stick upon grey-screen, but the energy is so high, it will not recover rapidly. I personally try to keep trim at higher than 244 mph (Spitfire cornering speed).
Practice finding your favorite trim speed and make note of the pitch trim indicator gauge. It's now part of my defensive checklist.

I remember the report that the F-16 reclined seat allowed us to go from 7G maximum to 9G. I'm not sure if that increase was due to physiological or airframe limitations, but it certainly "wowed" the aviation community back in the '80's!

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

i think everyone agrees that pilots will blackout when gs exceed a particular limit, that limit is determined by factors including, fitness, seating position, use of anti g exercises and the physics of gravity. the point that I wanted to make was "the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed" for the sake of gameplay even if not entirely accurate scientifically.

happy new year everyone

I was going to make a new year resolution to stop moaning and wringing, but why fool myself, my self control is pretty poor so I am going to give up clubbing baby seals instead.

[Karaya]

I remember the report that the F-16 reclined seat allowed us to go from 7G maximum to 9G. I'm not sure if that increase was due to physiological or airframe limitations, but it certainly "wowed" the aviation community back in the '80's!

Think it's a mix of both. Most of the fighters fielded immediately before the "teen series" simply werent cleared for 9G. Also the seat angling in the F-16 (~30°) is much more aggressive than in the Bf109.

i think everyone agrees that pilots will blackout when gs exceed a particular limit, that limit is determined by factors including, fitness, seating position, use of anti g exercises and the physics of gravity. the point that I wanted to make was "the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed" for the sake of gameplay even if not entirely accurate scientifically.

So far noone bothered doing an actual test flying both aircraft side by side to see at which G loads their pilots black out.
Of course it would save a lot of time and effort if Buzzsaw could simply tell us how much the reclined seat in the 109 improves G tolerance ingame.
As has been pointed out earlier most of the subjective impressions might be caused by the higher effectiveness of the RAF fighters' elevator controls as well as the lead/pure/lag pursuit point.

[DerDa]

Whatever it is, it should get more evident once the FW 190 will be introduced:

From Julius Meimberg, 'Feindberührung', p. 200 when he recalls the first impression of the 109, comparing it with the 109 (my translation):
'I let myself slide into the seat with the flat back, that causes an almost reclined position, in order to make it easier for the pilot to endure the forces resulting from a dog-fight.'

I seriously think about flying only transport and repair once 6.0 will be out ...

Nah ... never!

[Tibsun]

i think everyone agrees that pilots will blackout when gs exceed a particular limit, that limit is determined by factors including, fitness, seating position, use of anti g exercises and the physics of gravity. the point that I wanted to make was "the current difference in blackout threshold between the spitty and 109 is too exaggerated and needs to be narrowed" for the sake of gameplay even if not entirely accurate scientifically.

I'd say the Hispano cannons higher speed in rounds per minute and velocity of the shells, the spits ability to turn really hard in high speed also nose down, the paper wings on the 109 - is balancing enough, don't you think?
I think these advantages outweigh the G forces penalty, does it calm your mind knowing that?
I'd say it flies faster anyway, you can give it that advantage - for "balancing reasons".

[Baffin]

My main gripe about our game's over G Simulation is the long recovery time when back pressure is released. In the real world, as soon as you reduce the backpressure (The G'S), the vision will recover. This is true up to the point of unconsciousness. In our game, it's a developed skill to "Ride the gray" short of the blackout screen.

In the forums, we have discussed this in the past with great esoteric explanations of "Blackout" vs "Passed Out" but never agreed on a solution. For gaming, it's my opinon that we should never become unconscious and a reduction of G should always reward players with visual recovery within two seconds.

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

I'd say the Hispano cannons higher speed in rounds per minute and velocity of the shells, the spits ability to turn really hard in high speed also nose down, the paper wings on the 109 - is balancing enough, don't you think?
I think these advantages outweigh the G forces penalty, does it calm your mind knowing that?
I'd say it flies faster anyway, you can give it that advantage - for "balancing reasons".

in game the 109 in most situations can out dive, out climb, out turn (at low speed) and fly much faster in level flight then the comparable spitty or P40. in effect once a 109 pilot loses their boom and zoom advantage, they can just cut and run, with little risk of being caught, which experienced pilots do. in the one area where the spitty has a supposed advantage, the high speed turn, the blackout threshold mitigates any potential benefit.

I did when I originally raised this issue do a comparison between the spitty and 109 by see how hard I could turn at high speed, it was not particularly accurate, but done in level flight at same speed and alt. I found that I blacked out far quicker in the spitty, it was in fact difficult to turn hard enough in the 109 to induce a blackout.

[ATAG_Marlow]

I agree with Baffin. If you are serious about your flying and 'staying 'alive' on the servers, then you have to learn to 'ride the grey.' It's one of the basic skills a pilot needs. If he knows his aircraft well he should be able to hold it at the maximum turn rate without blacking out. This is certainly what I aim for.

In the older versions of the game I rarely felt worried when being chased by a 109 in a tight turn. I could nearly always avoid his shot and out turn him. However, I have found the F2's and F4's to be a totally different proposition. Now, I find experienced 109 pilots (and we have many) can stay with me in the turn.

Returning to the argument, if I black out I put it down to my own bad piloting. This miscalculation of speed and turn often occurs after an enforced break .......like Christmas.......so the Blues will have a field day next week when I return to the air! Ha ha!

Happy New Year, everybody!

[ATAG_JackMaxx]

[QUOTE=ATAG_Marlow;377668]I agree with Baffin. If you are serious about your flying and 'staying 'alive' on the servers, then you have to learn to 'ride the grey.'

riding they grey is fine and it is what we all try to do out of necessity, however if your opponent does not have to worry about blackouts or greyouts the contest is unequal.

[Tibsun]

I did when I originally raised this issue do a comparison between the spitty and 109 by see how hard I could turn at high speed, it was not particularly accurate, but done in level flight at same speed and alt. I found that I blacked out far quicker in the spitty, it was in fact difficult to turn hard enough in the 109 to induce a blackout.

I just tried both F4 and Spit V and to be honest it is so much easier to ride the edge of black out in the spit than it is in a 109 so actually the spit holds the black out benefit for me.

Oh and finally we get to the point I actually wanna see, objective proof in shape of a video or trk file.
Best case scenario - side by side flight and turn - no dogfight chase ( not comparable) - turning in circles in high speed, maybe you open up - or I

[AKA_Blasto]

S!~
If you find yourself blacking out in Cliifs- you are turning too tight and generally already dead. Speed and control...dive- zoom and roll - air combat rules apply to any aircraft- especially two that are so close a match.
The pilots in here will smell a rookie- turning right into their grave- and will gun you down blacked out or wide-eyed. Fast and aggressive- turn on final.
Happy New Year !

S!~ AKA_Blasto

[Little Bill]

My main gripe about our game's over G Simulation is the long recovery time when back pressure is released. In the real world, as soon as you reduce the backpressure (The G'S), the vision will recover. This is true up to the point of unconsciousness. In our game, it's a developed skill to "Ride the gray" short of the blackout screen.

In the forums, we have discussed this in the past with great esoteric explanations of "Blackout" vs "Passed Out" but never agreed on a solution. For gaming, it's my opinon that we should never become unconscious and a reduction of G should always reward players with visual recovery within two seconds.

This is interesting information, having never experienced a real blackout in an aircraft. However I have experienced a bunch in the game and have a question about the second and third blackout in a row. By "in a row" I mean within 5 to 10 seconds of each other. Assuming in the game. that the first blackout is at 6 G's and last X amount of time, in the game, the second blackout occurs at less G's and last longer, the third blackout is even worse, and by that time I am usually in the pot. It takes a short time for the blackout counter to settle down before I can resume normal high rate turns going to gray before blacking out. My question is, is this accurate, is this what happens in real life?

[Pinguim]

There has been a lot of discussion regarding G-forces in simulation (IL-2 Great Battles) the past couple of years. But, from what I read, there is a consensus that indeed you will have to reckon with fatigue and a decrease in the pilot's tolerance to G-forces after high-G maneuvers.

[Baffin]

This is interesting information, having never experienced a real blackout in an aircraft. However I have experienced a bunch in the game and have a question about the second and third blackout in a row. By "in a row" I mean within 5 to 10 seconds of each other. Assuming in the game. that the first blackout is at 6 G's and last X amount of time, in the game, the second blackout occurs at less G's and last longer, the third blackout is even worse, and by that time I am usually in the pot. It takes a short time for the blackout counter to settle down before I can resume normal high rate turns going to gray before blacking out. My question is, is this accurate, is this what happens in real life?

In my Air Force Physiology Training (PTU), they taught us that evolved gas disorders from pressurization (the Bends) were accumulative. I remember that issue since it is such a serious condition and is also exacerbated by scuba diving away from aviation. In the same PTU, they also addressed every aspect of G-Loading on the body and I cannot recall any accumulative effect like you describe as being mentioned. Having had many an over-G up to and slightly more than 7G, I never had to wait for recovery from loss of color vision (Gray out)... reduce the G's and all the pretty colors come right back. This is all related to oxygen deprivation as the blood pools in the lower extremities. It's very much like Hypoxia training in the altitude chamber when you take the oxygen mask off until you approach the "Time of useful consciousness" (Nearly passed out). The first symptom of Hypoxia for me was loss of color vision.

This entire blurb may not apply to everyone and that's why they made us endure it; to find out each man's personal symptoms. Also remember that I'm a Dinosaur and much more modern research has been conducted since those "Good, old days", especially since the limits have gone up to 9G.

Final answer about is this accurate in real life?: "Mayhaps it is, mayhaps it ain't". [Mother Abigail]

[Tibsun]

I feel like that usually one would know his limits and feel when you would need to reduce the G loading before a pass out would even happen.
If you get close to pass out for whatever extreme G loading you would lose control and therefore G loading would reduce going into a partial consciousness loss.
If I fall a sleep holding a smartphone above my head it would slap my face while getting close to falling asleep and never actually fall fully asleep doing that - my theory
-Losing consciousness and sleeping might not be the same so someone with knowledge might chime in.
Therefore maybe real pass out should only happen with heavy nose up trims where losing control would not stop the plane reducing G loading and not stop you from passing out.
I'm missing it anyway that in CloD dead pilots still have their controls column in the same position while they should lose control in a way that everything should be going to trimmed center straightend by windspeed.
Like that what would also happen when your control cables are damaged. But instead when controls get shot, it gets stuck instead of loose in CloD.
Losing control in CloD should result into the control column going to the trimmed center in my opinion, whatever it is being control cables being shot or you losing control temporarily.

[Baffin]

I feel like that usually one would know his limits and feel when you would need to reduce the G loading before a pass out would even happen.
If you get close to pass out for whatever extreme G loading you would lose control and therefore G loading would reduce going into a partial consciousness loss.
If I fall a sleep holding a smartphone above my head it would slap my face while getting close to falling asleep and never actually fall fully asleep doing that - my theory
-Losing consciousness and sleeping might not be the same so someone with knowledge might chime in.
Therefore maybe real pass out should only happen with heavy nose up trims where losing control would not stop the plane reducing G loading and not stop you from passing out.
I'm missing it anyway that in CloD dead pilots still have their controls column in the same position while they should lose control in a way that everything should be going to trimmed center straightend by windspeed.
Like that what would also happen when your control cables are damaged. But instead when controls get shot, it gets stuck instead of loose in CloD.
Losing control in CloD should result into the control column going to the trimmed center in my opinion, whatever it is being control cables being shot or you losing control temporarily.

However, in CLoD, we sometimes have elevator damage that still permits control for descent and landing through the trim tab. This indicates to me a non-stuck condition. It seems to me that actual combat damage to surfaces, control cables or balance tabs may result in either condition: stuck control surface or freely hinged slipstreaming of the control. Since this would be quite a random result of impacts, any outcome may be realistic. Thats kind of a desireable feature... one which requires the pilot to analyze and determine whether or not he has any or no control.