You millennials make me laugh.
It was a simple question. I see I received some very ‘simple’ responses.
Good day.
I think this has a simple answer: it’s an unimportant cosmetic that, realistically, is a bit redundant.
5 Likes
Could you expand on that opinion?
It’s a very real component of high performance flying and important for those not flying in C172 and A320s.
I think FSX had it, but I’d have to check. I guess the devs need to make up their mind if they want to cater to every aspect of aviation or just slow VFR operations. Not going into the autopilot and navdata discussion here.
Just curious what makes you think it’s redundant.
3 Likes
How would a black-out or red-out influence your flying experience in-sim? We all understand this is a simulation, yes, but in the same breath there needs to be prioritization. This is simply not a priority. How does not including a black screen or red screen portray the developers as only catering to one side of aviation? Lol. Unless you’ve got an oxygen cannister set-up for your high performance simulation flying I fail to see how simulated black or red out is viable. Hats off to real world aerobatic pilots, and I’ve met a few of those cowboys, but I fail to see how this missing feature translates to an important component of the simulation at this time.
4 Likes
Interesting take on my post. I feel like words are being put into my mouth.
Nowhere did I write that the devs only cater to one side of aviation. I wrote they need to make up their mind about whom they want to cater to, because they are currently not catering to all aspects, which you confirm by saying they prioritize. Which is fine. There was no judgement in what I wrote, neither obvious nor inferred
VFR is really the only viable thing to do at the moment, as the avionics are not elaborate enough for realistic IFR out of the box at this point, neither is Air Traffic Control and a few other features. Instead we have a weird approximation of real world procedures. This has been discussed a lot on this forum and I won’t touch upon that again in this thread.
I think we both agree that those issues take priority and g effects can come later.
How would g effects influence my flying experience in-sim? I think that is very obvious and other sims have shown that g effects are viable. In fact FSX had g effects as an option. I quickly installed it and made a screenshot for you. So if Microsoft thought it was viable in the past, they seem to have changed their mind.
I do not care either way frankly, because I get my high performance fix in DCS. But I sympathize with people who expected this to be in FS2020, because I expected certain features as well that were missing.
Disclaimer: This post was written without any intend to be inflammatory in any way and just tries to stay factual.
3 Likes
I am not trying to put words in your mouth, sorry if it looked that way. However, the statement was flawed from the outset as it is not practical to cater to every aspect of aviation. At least, not all at once. Hence where my prioritization comment comes into play. If you truly believe G-effects should be in-game, go for it and move this thread to the Wishlist category so that others may vote on it!
Sorry but this still doesn’t help me understand how simulated black/red-out is viable to home simmers as I don’t see it obvious at all. Perhaps it was removed because of its non-usefulness? I can see in a combat flight sim that having a blacked out screen leaving you like a sitting duck while you hope to regain consciousness. That’s as far as I’m understanding so far.
3 Likes
How is it not useful? In any aircraft where the pilot can pull enough G to affect vision is a real effect, not having it modeled makes it too easy to fly around at 9 G all day long with no effect other than a loss of airspeed.
How is it not viable? The code is in the FSX code base, just put it back in…
3 Likes
Thanks for touching base on that. No offense taken. I hope you don’t feel offended either. 
I do not believe that my statement was inherently flawed, as I was always under the impression, Flight Simulator did exactly that, providing a simulated environment where any kind of aircraft and use of aircraft can be simulated. We have general aviation, airliners, aerobatics and military aviation all in one simulator, rotary wings to be determined. We even had a Space Shuttle in FSX.
In other words, an aviation sandbox.
I admit the G-effects were not very advanced in FSX, but that could have been an area to improve upon with this iteration of the simulator. It used to be something that developers could enable for their aircraft in the configuration file. Imagine doing a Red Bull Air Race or air show kind of routine and blacking out. Same sitting duck situation, only that the enemy is the terrain and not some other aircraft.
It would also prohibit the pilot from flying unrealistic maneuvers and give them some “seat of the pants” feeling back.
If we argue GLOC is too offensive to be simulated because it can lead to death, then I have to ask, why do we have icing in the simulator this time? Because it’s a real danger to pilots, cost many lives over the last 100 years and flight planning revolves around avoiding dangerous conditions for any given flight and aircraft type. Also because we have a good weather engine now, surely.
Also, while we are talking about icing. Why do we have that but not hypoxia? I can assure you people are cruising around in ther Bonanzas and DA62’s thinking that they routinely fly at FL150. It would have been a great learning experience for beginners to realize that you need supplemental oxygen up there and why.
I can understand that we will never have weapons in Flight Simulator, but gravity (weight) is one of the four forces of flight, so it seems rather essential to me to model it correctly. That includes GLOC in my book, but I realize that is just an opinion.
At least make provisions in the engine for someone else to include it at some point through the SDK and all is well.
2 Likes
I personally aren’t bothered if MSFS has it or not. In fact I used to disable it in FSX. There are so many other things I’d like to see first… like helicopters for instance.
The icing that we now have looks fantastic… but it happens to the aircraft. Hypoxia would happen to the person flying the aircraft… but MSFS isn’t a person simulator? Not much of an argument I know, but as I said… I’m not bothered if it’s included or not. Just my thoughts.
Regards
Steve
I look at it differently.
This is a relevant feature for the type of flying that can be simulated with this simulator. It is feasible to implement – we know that since it was implemented in the past.
Since it is relevant and feasible I believe it should go on the backlog.
That is the first step.
Now, where on the backlog should it be? Totally different question! Given other things that need fixed it could probably spend a year or two sitting on the backlog. On the other hand, sitting on a prioritized backlog means that it if a developer happens to get to that point on his backlog six weeks from now and has nothing better to do it gets implemented six weeks from now.
So I say let’s put it on the backlog, priority low. Here is a thread to vote on from a month ago:
2 Likes
The developers should drop everything else they’re doing to fix the game and implement this ASAP!
2 Likes
blacking out at 15k?
you have to be smoking since you were 13, drunk, and high on xanax to achieve that
1 Like
Maybe they should add an option to insert your body weight, length, muscle mass, smoker etc. and have realistic black-out red-out effects 
.
2 Likes
Just like the replay mode, flight analysis, accurate visibility / RVR options, the absence to change units of measurement when the sim was released etc. 
?
1 Like
There is a reason why flight without supplemental oxygen above FL100 is limited to 30 minutes and limited to FL130 I would say? TUC is depending on may factors obviously but flying above FL100 for prolonged time without the use of supplemental oxygen is generally considered as not a good idea…
2 Likes
I would specifically like more feedback about G-forces in the sim for use with acrobatic and military-style planes; as previously noted the Extra 330 can pull +/- 10 Gs and the MB 339 jet trainer (community mod, not yet in marketplace) can pull strong enough Gs that it will break the airframe, so you have to watch what you’re doing!
Having visual feedback of blackout/redout for strong positive/negative G forces would help me determine that I’m going too far and won’t be able to continue the maneuver without easing up a bit, saving me and the plane from a grisly mid-air demise. 
So yes, I would find it a useful addition to the sim.
Some planes have an accelerometer in the instrument panel which helps, but you have to watch it specifically and it’s not visible in external camera.
1 Like
people climb mountains above 13k
The OP is in regards to blacking out from pulling excessive G’s. Not flying too high. As most planes are pressurized, that wouldn’t be an issue.
Not necessarily, most MSFS planes aren’t pressurized actually, falls under the same topic I would say. Hypoxia, black-out + red-out would be a nice addition to the realism of the sim.
1 Like
Again the rules and regulations are based on something I would think, mountain climbers are more fit than the average pilot I guess, also climbing a mountain goes much slower than climbing an aircraft, giving the body more time to adapt maybe?