Jump to content

Ala13_ManOWar

Members
  • Posts

    2980
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by Ala13_ManOWar

  1. 1 hour ago, Nealius said:

    C. If you don't have anything helpful to add then don't waste our time with useless comments like this.

    And I go exactly like that. But that of yours is a blatant lie since you started this very topic with nothing good to say instead of searching around what's already written or sources about it anywhere, which is by the way also  how I do, I look for myself before accusing anyone, third party module maker or not, of "it's all wrong" 🤣 .

    Well done mates, well done. Over and out.

  2. 3 hours ago, Nealius said:

    So the question is, why does the F1 have adverse yaw at low AoA while other analog jets don't? 

    Because slats, adverse yaw in F1 is a well known feature of the model, same as it is in F-4 because… the same.

    • Like 1
  3. I happen to have an 25cm (~10 inch) extension in my Warthog, I still have to use curves in every module to mimic a comfortable response in pitch and roll, not too sensitive and all despite the extension which already gives you way more control and precision than short vanilla stick. By the way, I haven't used any curve in F1 so far, point being, it's not so sensitive at all compared to 99% of the other modules. Try using curves, they are there to be used, and your aircraft won't become any Jumbo, you'll just be able to control it as it's meant to be since we usually don't have real controls (long sticks to start with) available at home to fully represent a real aircraft's controls behaviour, but curves do just fine to match that having a short stick.

  4. 15 minutes ago, Chaprot said:

    You are right Ala13_ManOWar, in fact my dislexia has been detrimental to me (sorry). The correct trajectory should be "up" "right" heading 310° and not "down" "left" indicated.

    Screen_220730_142445.jpg

    I've been there, don't worry. The fact that some VORs actually work reversed, and they also revert every time you change from To to From isn't helping either.

  5. 18 hours ago, sedenion said:

    Ok Indeed found the option. For information I have to set it to 78 on my side. Anyway, the dead zone problem still here.

    Have you tried calibrating the throttle again? But don't use windows calibration, there is a Thrustmaster tool for the purpose working quite well,

    https://deltasimelectronics.com/pages/install-instructions

    There it is the calibration tool DL, it's a public tool though not publicly available by TM, they only send you the tool once you have contacted support for any reason, spare part replacement and the like. Try it, your detent place will "move" again, but the throttle axis will have a tighter response.

     

    P.S.: as said, if they modelled just the actual throttle/engine response how it is in the real thing it's not any "problem", it is just like that. You don't liking how the aircraft throttle response is is a problem, imagine not liking it when you fly the real thing and telling Dassault they have a bug 🤣

  6. 1) In my plane the master caution horn is piercing your ear as soon as switched on, have you set some of the general volumes in the game too low by any chance?

    2) I believe radio and everything volumes aren't working right now (didn't try latest patch, but).

    3) You need to let the thing stabilize and set before taxiing, apparently nothing is happening and the usual is it's already fine by the time you have to taxi, but it you taxi too soon it might not align correctly, not said in any start-up tutorial I've watched but I happen to have a friend who was F1 ground crew and told us so for starting up.

    • Like 1
    • Thanks 1
  7. That appears to be the glide path, not the azimuth.

     

    Or not even that, you're too damn low in your approach, I don't think that glide path is too bad at all 😅 .

  8. As per your words, do you understand it's a hardware problem (Warthog here either), not a module problem if they just modelled whatever the response it is in the real thing, right? On top of that, how could they possibly held in account every single hardware behaviour in the World?

     

    Second thing, I keep listening people saying that there's a "dead zone", I believe (Warthog either, remember) I don't recall any dead zone but a low response area which is useless even for taxiing, yes, and that area is widened due to detent tweaking, yes, but to my recall even being so low responding the engine rpm are moving in that area of the throttle, so it's not "nothing is happening" as a real dead zone should be. Anyhow and whatever it is, if you don't like that just cut that part of the curve and you'll be fine as you did, personally I wouldn't cur that since those low response areas on the ground might be not so numb at higher altitudes or just some different scenario, but that's only everyone's choice.

     

    Third, no, the curve cut doesn't amputate your "precision". On the contrary, you're more precise if you have more room to choose from, not the other way around. If you had less room to choose from it would be more sensitive and more difficult to choose an exact throttle input, but the way it is you have less sensitiveness, so it's easier to choose an exact input more precisely, not the opposite.

     

    Four. Apparently when you made your correction curve you didn't even consider in trying to make the "curve" as straight as possible. Try to use a peak for AB detent place, and the rest of the curve, before and after the peak, the straightest you can to see how that kind of response works for you.

    • Like 1
  9. 2 hours ago, RED said:

    Yeah, so i just yanked my head down there in VR and there is indeed the gap to touch the buttons. Didn't know it was a problem in 2D with the RWR. The thing with the sun cover right now is that it doesnt block the sun but blocks your fingers(mouse).

    Well, I remember if you pass your mouse cursor over the place the buttons are there and could be operated. You have to already know the location of each one though.

  10. Basic heading is just pointed by the white filled big triangle on top, (don't pay attention to the names written there, the red ones are wrongly marked BTW)

    m5IUWRo.jpeg

     

    What has changed, indeed, if you haven't used it in a long time, is how RSBN/ARK needles work and their logic which was reversed during module's first time (reversed as those red labels there). When I came back to the module myself a couple years ago I also spent a hard time trying to understand what was going on until I figured out they had reverted it all to match real behaviour which was wrongly understood by devs at first.

    • Thanks 1
  11. Combat flaps button is on the throttle and can be used for combat as the name says, I believe it's not exactly flaps but mostly leading edge slats and so, but it's there for you to use it.

    The lever on the other hand I think it's just the flaps control next to throttle but in horizontal left panel and it controls the three position flaps for take off/landing, I believe but perhaps I'm mixing up now those pesky names 🤣 . Bit confusing names mixed from those French fellas, yeah.

  12. That's not the pilot's perspective exactly, if you go that far down with your head inside the in game cockpit you would see pretty much the same in the module.

    Anyhow, I might recall there was some sort of thick fabric covering that lower hollow, preventing light from going in there, but not a problem to overcome with your fingers to touch the buttons. I've seen that somewhere, but not even sure it was for F1, perhaps other aircraft featuring the radar cover 🤔 .

  13. 26 minutes ago, M1Combat said:

    (so I can't tell my copy of DCS that all bullets are hits no matter where I fire them...)

    Yeah, not that exactly what I was thinking about, but I was sure that wasn't meant to be a technical problems free solution for sure 🤣 .


    And, yes, I believe I answered the guy in the firsts posts about his videos and how he was missing the shot 😅 .

    • Like 1
  14. 1 hour ago, M1Combat said:

    Well...  I'd like to see some evidence that the negative G's here would cause that...  I mean they were already pretty slow through most of that interaction.

    Also...  netcode will make direction change look a decent bit more abrupt than it actually is.  That doesn't help much when we're talking about getting guns on because it just is what it is in regards to that but when you're also trying to add in the "instant fatality" (dramatized for effect...) argument I think it's worth separating what was happening on the local side vs. the remote side.  I'd bet $1 that on the opposing pilot's side it looked perfectly normal from all points of view.

     

    80ms latency...  Just for example...

    At 80ms ping the plane travels just under 30' in 80 milliseconds at 250Mph.  We all know that's not a super high ping and we also all know that 250Mph isn't that fast.  It's already well into "The other guy effed up already anyway" speeds.  That means that the remote aircraft, at 80ping and 250Mph, will appear to travel about 30' BEFORE you SEE it being affected by pilot controls.  The remote aircraft needs to also remain fairly close to where it actually is in the remote players world so the netcode will adjust it's position and bring it back to where it should be.  This creates more abrupt movement on the remote side.  The magnitude of the difference will be almost directly based on ping and speed.  I'm sure there is prediction in the netcode that attempts to keep them from doing really dumb things but at the end of the day (or direction change in this case) the aircraft on the remote end and the local end have to be pretty close to the same place...  so it has to compress abrupt maneuvers into less time than they actually took...  because it didn't know the remote aircraft was moving for about 30' after it started moving (again...  that's at relatively low ping and low speed...).

    Another small example of this...

    in iRacing with an 80ms ping and a 200Mph brake point...  You will see your opponent brake about 24' after they actually do.  Then...  The netcode needs to play catch up to try to synchronize where the car actually is between the local and remote systems so it ALSO makes the brakes appear to outperform what they could actually do.  It also makes the turn in look much more abrupt (noticing any similarities???).  It also makes it appear that the remote car missed the apex so you don't see how much of the curb they're taking.  People watch iRacing alien replays when they are IN SESSION with those aliens and think "WTF!!!!  How can that guy hit the brakes a full on 24' AFTER I CAN, has "super brakes" and then can't even hit an apex...  but is 1/9 seconds per minute lap faster than me???".  Well...  they can't.  And they aren't.

    If you run iRacing...  someday ask an alien to provide a fast lap replay to you (some will) from a session that you were also in.  Watch the differences between their replay of what actually happened and you replay of what happened looking through the netcode...

    VERY different things.

    Same here...  but ED is dealing with speeds that are "a bit" higher than race cars.

     

    Anyway...  this is a bad argument.  Shoot better and you won't need to worry about what the other pilot is doing.  There were like 15 times in that vid where the attacker could have killed the defender and they just didn't connect with the target.  Fix that.

    And an actual solution for that could be, like some old flight sim I recall, the guy is getting the shots in the current place where I'm actually seeing him right now so if the wild yanking is not translated to me due to ping/connection issues and I don't see those exactly how they are due to those being too quick to translate into an online server for what they are, he'll still get the shots making those wildratboyinplaystationgamepad yanks absolutely useless. If you have a bad internet connection problem, or just are connecting to some server too far away from you resulting in too high pings and "suffer" in any way the possible drawbacks caused from such a thing, just get a better connection/PC and fly in closer to you MP servers.

    Of course I can think of a lot of drawbacks derived from such a measure (could be a server option), but could be an actual possibility 🤔.

×
×
  • Create New...