Actually use the 'negative G' section of the G-Force meter

[BudgetHedgehog]

-5G? That's shown as +5.

I mean, the negative section is right there but it's not being used. If it wasn't there, I wouldn't have an issue, it would all just be G forces, not negative or positive, but it even goes down to negative 5, but the needle only goes down as far as 0.

For reference:

Just a minor thing but one that doesn't make a lick of sense to me. Either use it or lose it.

[LaytheAerospace]

Really? I'm pretty sure I've pegged the meter at -5 flying my high performance spaceplanes before. I might be crazy, though.

As a side note, from the pilot's point of view, there is a very big difference between -5 and +5 gees. People are much better at taking positive gee forces than negative. Go negative too hard and the blood vessels in your eyes burst causing a redout, instead of the blackout caused by positive gee forces.

[BudgetHedgehog]

Yeah, I know about the various effects of the different Gs, I've flown a plane or two (only single seater trainers though but negative G was a lot harder to cope with than an equivalent positive G). Side note to the side note: the highest amount of G-force recorded as survived by anyone is by Formula One racing car driver David Purley, who survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km/h (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches).

And I think you might be crazy:

[LaytheAerospace]

Side note to the side note: the highest amount of G-force recorded as survived by anyone is by Formula One racing car driver David Purley, who survived an estimated 179.8 g in 1977 when he decelerated from 173 km/h (108 mph) to 0 in a distance of 66 cm (26 inches).

Neat. The only record I was familiar with was the highest "willingly" endured, by the guy (name escapes me) who repeatedly strapped himself to a rocket sled...for science!

And I think you might be crazy:

Seems to be confirmed.

[BudgetHedgehog]

I'll have a fly around, but I've honestly never seen the G go negative, not even in the Flight Log stats. I'll update this with any findings.

EDIT: No luck yet..

Inverted loop? That's positive gee's, son:

(I just realised I had the same guy on each trip.. Poor Fredrick.. )

Edited May 30, 2014 by ObsessedWithKSP

[LaytheAerospace]

D'oh! I was going to say maybe it was FAR, but now I see that you've got that, too.

*scratches head*

Oh well, at least now I know I'm crazy!

[Kasuha]

G-force meter is measuring acceleration which can go in any direction relative to the command pod, not just up and down. At least in stock game, it is only displaying absolute value of the acceleration, regardless of direction.

[Red Iron Crown]

Weird that it has a negative part of the gauge if it's measuring absolute value of acceleration. May just be something that never got implemented, like the red zone in the throttle gauge.

[Kasuha]

Red zone in throttle gauge was actually used in early versions as "overthrottle" but it had no ill effects.

It might be good, though, to have that "overthrottle" functionality implemented somehow, such as that if you overthrottle, all your engines will start overheating really fast and they will explode if you don't pull the throttle back. With standard throttle up to 100% you'd be guaranteed the engine won't ever overheat, with throttle above 100% you'd be guaranteed it will explode if you leave it that way.

[BudgetHedgehog]

G-force meter is measuring acceleration which can go in any direction relative to the command pod, not just up and down. At least in stock game, it is only displaying absolute value of the acceleration, regardless of direction.

And that's what I'm suggesting is changed.. that the G meter differentiates between up and down. It has a display that would show it, what I have an issue with is that it's not being used. Like I said, use it or lose it.

[Red Iron Crown]

Red zone in throttle gauge was actually used in early versions as "overthrottle" but it had no ill effects.

It might be good, though, to have that "overthrottle" functionality implemented somehow, such as that if you overthrottle, all your engines will start overheating really fast and they will explode if you don't pull the throttle back. With standard throttle up to 100% you'd be guaranteed the engine won't ever overheat, with throttle above 100% you'd be guaranteed it will explode if you leave it that way.

Interesting, I don't remember being able to overthrottle. Might be useful for lifters where TWR is marginal at liftoff, overthrottle until enough fuel is used. Or maybe if a part of the propulsion system breaks off on landing, you might be able to get back up by overthrottling.

On topic: I'm not sure differentiating negative Gs is all that useful, better to just remove the negative section and leave the functionality as is.

[Sirrobert]

And that's what I'm suggesting is changed.. that the G meter differentiates between up and down. It has a display that would show it, what I have an issue with is that it's not being used. Like I said, use it or lose it.

There is no up and down in space.

A high change in speed (both acceleration and deceleration) results in higher G forces

[BudgetHedgehog]

Up or down relative to the command pod and the orientation of the kerbals exists though. Lander can pointed toward the engine and you throttle up? That negative gee's, no matter what orientation your ship is in.

Besides, like I said, if a negative G needle is too difficult to implement or understand, then get rid of it, I don't mind. At the moment though, the -g section is unused.I'll repeat for the third time, use it or lose it.

[Javster]

Maybe they should remove the negative zone unless they plan on using it.

[Vaporo]

Personally, I don't see much of a use for this. It might be kind of useful for spaceplanes, but you should be able to tell which direction your g-forces are coming from just by looking at the orientation of the craft. Implementation would also be a bit confusing, as there are three axes that g-forces occur on. What happens if you have 5 g's in the positive direction on one axis and 5 g's in the negative direction on another axis? They can't just be added together.

Maybe there could be multiple modes. One mode is what we have now, where the g's are just measured as positive on all axes. The second mode would be used with spaceplanes, which wouldn't have much in the way of sideways g's, and only measure g's on the vertical axis. This would allow the second mode to be able to measure negative g's.

[LaytheAerospace]

What happens if you have 5 g's in the positive direction on one axis and 5 g's in the negative direction on another axis? They can't just be added together.

Sure they can. What we're generally interested in (for planes and rockets, at least) is vertical gee forces relative to the cockpit. Just use a bit of trig and add up the vertical components. Alternatively, just give us three axes for gee forces, and display them all independently.

It's not an especially hard problem.

[Superfluous J]

So if you have 5g acceleration at a 45 degree angle forward and down, is that +5 or -5?

Better to just leave it as a scalar and make the gauge larger. Same with the throttle, remove the >100% area and give us more room on the gauge. Also, split it into 4 sections so KurtJMac stops saying he's at 50% throttle when he's actually at 33% or 66%

[Red Iron Crown]

Also, split it into 4 sections so KurtJMac stops saying he's at 50% throttle when he's actually at 33% or 66%

This, please. Who ever says that their throttle is set at 9/15ths?

[Vaporo]

Originally Posted by Vaporo

What happens if you have 5 g's in the positive direction on one axis and 5 g's in the negative direction on another axis? They can't just be added together.

Sure they can. What we're generally interested in (for planes and rockets, at least) is vertical gee forces relative to the cockpit. Just use a bit of trig and add up the vertical components. Alternatively, just give us three axes for gee forces, and display them all independently.

It's not an especially hard problem.

Yes, you can get a result with some vector math, but vectors are technically always positive. A negative vector just rotates the direction by 180 degrees.

So if you have 5g acceleration at a 45 degree angle forward and down, is that +5 or -5?

what he said.

Should have made that clear in my first post. I just finished a college trigonometry course, so trig-related stuff seems incredibly obvious to me right now.

As for g meters for all three axes, that would definitely solve the problem, but would get incredibly confusing, not to mention taking up extra screen space. Besides, what would define positive and negative on the left-right axis? I suppose that they could just be labeled "left-right" as opposed to "positive-negative."