Pilot modeling- effect on realism

[mtnman]

This is coming as a result of a discussion in another thread questioning plane performance.  Specifically the point was made about gear being deployed and retracted within seconds, but that got me thinking about other things...

I've been giving some thought to how the modeling of our AH pilot (and also joystick set-up) could lead us to being able to get our planes to perform at a higher level than is realistic or even possible.  As in- maybe we're attributing perceived errors to the FM, when the "pilot model" could easily be at least partially to blame.

Even beyond the obvious questions of exertion, fatigue, etc...

Last night at work I weighed my head/neck and arm.  And then I came home and found out I could just google them, which might have been easier...  Anyhow- it turns out my head/neck weigh around 16#, and my arm around 12#.  In a 5G turn, my head/neck would effectively seem to weigh 80#, and my arm 60#.

My joystick is set up with my flaps on a switch on my throttle that I can control with my index finger.  This allows me to control both at the same time, which from what I can tell, shouldn't even be possible in the F4U.  For me, not only is it possible, it's easy and second-nature.  Even under G-load I can easily manipulate both controls- again, I doubt that would be possible in the real plane. 

Also, under G-load my head should be more difficult to move, and even impossible to hold in certain positions. In a high G turn, should I be able to rapidly transition between looking over my right shoulder, to looking over my left, to looking straight up, while dropping another notch of flaps, reducing throttle, kicking rudder and not jostling the stick too much?  Keep in mind I'm not wearing bulky clothing, gloves etc, while playing at home.  I'm not scared, I don't have to do #2, and I'm not stiff from being in one position and cold for hours at a shot.

My point is this- even if the FM is correct for any particular plane, I should be able to get performance out of it that would be impossible in real life.  I effectively have a robot flying my plane, programmed by my thoughts.  The physical limitations aren't modeled, and I have the luxury of setting up my controls in a manner that easily allows me to perform actions impossible to perform in real life.

Would it be worthwhile/valuable to have a more accurately modeled pilot?  Would it be difficult?  Would it unfairly restrict people new to the game?  A time-delay between inputs for certain function (throttle and flaps, for example), and slowing down the transition between views as G's increased might add realism.  Also, having certain functions "frozen" under high G's (ability to switch between looking forward and checking high six while experiencing high G's?)  Or even modeling fatigue by slowing down control inputs as time under G's builds...

Even in slow flight my stick set-up allows a reduced work-load for me, allowing me to devote my efforts elsewhere.

From a realism standpoint, modeling a more realistic pilot might be a great thing...

MtnMan

[Yenny]

^_^ and pulling 6 G as you crank ur head look behind ya ! that's kinda tuff in RL!

[Anaxogoras]

Great post, and I think your point is 100% accurate.

[moot]

What's the criteria for slowing down any given input to instrumentation? How do you avoid complaints from users of a certain plane that had either less of a handicap than the proposed general handicap, or significantly less than another plane?  G-Suits standard on some planes and not others?  G-effect reduced or increased from seat position? etc.
I think this probably falls into the same rationale that gave us standardized instruments and combat trim.  It allows the players to focus on the dogfighting rather than the micromanagement distractions.  It would have been great for CT..

These features that would be the same regardless of the plane, like the linda blair and/or xyzG limitations on head positions could be an exception, though.  It's going to be hairy to model the exact limitations for each different flight regime, for each different cockpit, imo.

[BaldEagl]

Good point but I suspect gameplay woud suffer as a result.

[toonces3]

Great post mtn.

We have enough real pilots on here.  Imagine flying around, pulling some G's, and then having to take your hand off the throttle to find the flap handle, and position it to the position you want it in.  Now, imagine cranking 5 or 6 G's and doing that.  Now imagine cranking 5 or 6 G's, looking behind you, inverted, and doing it.

Yep, sure is alot easier to just have those two little buttons on my HOTAS for 'flaps up' and 'flaps down'.

[AWRaid]

Would be nice if this was implemented, however I don't think it will be.


Fears of running customers away...


I'm anal retentive about realism but a lot of people aren't.

 

[mtnman]

What's the criteria for slowing down any given input to instrumentation? How do you avoid complaints from users of a certain plane that had either less of a handicap than the proposed general handicap, or significantly less than another plane?  G-Suits standard on some planes and not others?  G-effect reduced or increased from seat position? etc.
I think this probably falls into the same rationale that gave us standardized instruments and combat trim.  It allows the players to focus on the dogfighting rather than the micromanagement distractions.  It would have been great for CT..

These features that would be the same regardless of the plane, like the linda blair and/or xyzG limitations on head positions could be an exception, though.  It's going to be hairy to model the exact limitations for each different flight regime, for each different cockpit, imo.

I agree with your points-  they crossed my mind as well.  I don't expect HTC to remodel the pilot, Iwas mainly trying to point out that factors other than plane modeling could easily be skewing the performance envelope of the planes we fly.  If I could drive my truck from the comfort of my chair at home I'm confident I could get it to do things I would never imagine even trying if I was behind the wheel myself.

From a realism standpoint, I'd love to see a remodeled pilot.  Just as I'd love to see some wind in the MA.  I can also see the points in not having wind, night, engine management, etc.

When the pilot-factor is removed from the planes, we're going to see some "altered reality".  Of course, that may not be bad, it's just not realistic.  For better or worse...

MtnMan

[Gixer]

G effects etc are one factor, planes in AH are dumbed down to their most basic degree of flight operations, hit E full throttle take off..

There are checklists-steps-procedures to every aspect of flying. AH has none of that including G effects to the degree you've mentioned (though a good idea) simply because it's designed to fit within the scope of a PC Game not a flight simulator. Where the focus is more on gunnery, then FM,procedures,atmosphere and G effects.

We don't even have variable atmosphere,clouds,wind,temp conditions and buffeting etc all planes fly as if they are on rails. So that any newbie can take off and shoot stuff.

Yes they could add extra Pilot G effects as you've described or they could move aircraft operations from gamey to simulator. But that would never happen as it would require complete redesign of every aircraft to include the kind of detail you see in pro-addon aircraft for MSFS.

As for the "This is coming as a result of a discussion in another thread questioning plane performance.  Specifically the point was made about gear being deployed and retracted within seconds, but that got me thinking about other things..."

That discussion was more specifically to the point of the F4Us ability to dump gear in a second use it as a air brake,dump full flaps and still being able to maintain a level of control that's simply overmodeled and abused. Nothing to do with the overall point being made of "all aircraft" being able to do this as they can't. It's a F4U only attribute.



<S>...-Gixer

[CAP1]

Great post mtn.

We have enough real pilots on here.  Imagine flying around, pulling some G's, and then having to take your hand off the throttle to find the flap handle, and position it to the position you want it in.  Now, imagine cranking 5 or 6 G's and doing that.  Now imagine cranking 5 or 6 G's, looking behind you, inverted, and doing it.

Yep, sure is alot easier to just have those two little buttons on my HOTAS for 'flaps up' and 'flaps down'.

DIDN'T THE F4F, AND A COUPLE JAP PLANES have automatic combat flaps?   

[Grape]

  I like the idea of making it harder to look around while pulling high G's.  Let it come to the game.

[BnZs]

Okay, one thing I've noticed, I think we tend to have too much control authority at too high a speed at some airplanes. There are many airplanes, like the 109, that were supposed to get very heavy controls at high IAS, but you can easily pull into the blackout in the 109 until past 400mph IAS. Since these kind of speeds are practical only from a powerdive, control stiffness has very little negative impact on a smart 109 pilot, or that of any other aircraft that historically had this sort of defect. I think this factor can effect gameplay in ways contrary to history, example, the relative effectiveness of the 110 in BoB scenarios vs. its more or less sitting duck status in the BoB.

[save]

icons makes life too easy
having a neon sign ontop of your plane makes sneaks so much harder

60% of all successful kills where when the pilot never saw his enemy IRL

In another competing game they have low icon ranges (under d10 for enemy or so depending on scenario, and only few or no range icons) for scenarios.

[mtnman]

As for the "This is coming as a result of a discussion in another thread questioning plane performance.  Specifically the point was made about gear being deployed and retracted within seconds, but that got me thinking about other things..."

That discussion was more specifically to the point of the F4Us ability to dump gear in a second use it as a air brake,dump full flaps and still being able to maintain a level of control that's simply overmodeled and abused. Nothing to do with the overall point being made of "all aircraft" being able to do this as they can't. It's a F4U only attribute.



<S>...-Gixer

That's why I answered the gear question there (where it was brought up) but took my tangent here, where gear deployment wasn't brought up.

And it's not an F4U only thing.  It's game wide.  List an airplane where deploying gear or flaps at the approved airspeed doesn't result in a near-instantaneous effect of the gear or flaps being deployed.  Show me an airplane that doesn't remain stable as a result of same.  Show me a plane that has an air brake that can't use that to slow down, or that loses control as a result of doing so.  You're aware that the gear on the F4U is an air brake right?  Is it abusive to use it as such?

You seem confidant in your accusations of the F4U being overmodeled.  Any proof?  Going by gut instincts? Second hand accounts? Preconceived notions based on nicknames (Ensign Eliminator, or Sweetheart of Okinawa).  Or do you have something more?  If you have anything reliable and factual, please present it.  It's been argued enough without any substantial data to support a change.  I for one would welcome any realistic changes to any of the flight models.  Do tell, what should the level of control be for the Hog?

Your post makes it appear to me that you're arguing that aspects of the game are dumbed down, but that other aspects are too (the F4U flight model)?  And that others aren't (all the other fight models)?

MtnMan

[mtnman]

DIDN'T THE F4F, AND A COUPLE JAP PLANES have automatic combat flaps?   

The flaps on the F4U (once deployed) should blow back up as airspeed increases, and return to their down position as airspeed decreases.  Would I find it useful to have my flaps blow up like that, and then return to the down position as I slowed?  Sure!  In that respect, an argument could be made that the flaps on the F4U are UNDER-modeled.

Yes, several other airplanes in WWII had that feature as well. (N1K?)

With our already reduced pilot workload, I'm not so sure that modeling that is necessary, but it would be neat from a realism standpoint.

MtnMan