Cgjunk2

Good point regarding settings. In my case, hear in helmet and loud AB are both off. I hear the different sounds in each engine

The forces felt on the stick are an important part of aircraft development IRL. If in reality the Fulcrum’s stick forces in roll are 50% of the forces in pitch, then it seems that FFB is not accurately modeled at present. Has anybody else noticed heavier roll than pitch? @Raven (Elysian Angel) I wonder, if your settings have something inverted? I don’t have FFB yet, so I couldn’t guess if it might be inverted, but it seems odd that ED would have forces modeled exactly backwards to real life. As an aside, I’m hoping for a time in the near future where developers will use existing documentation to develop accurate stick force models, as much as they do for developing accurate flight models. I’m not referring to vibration or gun effects (those are nice as an addition), but actual intentionally-designed or naturally-occuring control forces felt by the pilot throughout the flight regime. Flight models and stick force models go hand-in-hand, and it would be a terrible loss (from a flight sim accuracy perspective) to continually expect the end-user and back-end software to create force profiles that that are essentially guesses as to the how the stick responds in the real airplane.

Just noticed the same issue last night. It seems like engine no. 1 one has a fuller sound model (turbine whine, combustion, and, with the sound of massive amounts of air being compressed and moved). While engine no. 2 only generates a quiet turbine sound. Both engines combined sound great, but not so much when you have an engine failure (confusing auditory feedback)

Some might think this comment is too much “iTs nOT a GamE, It’S a SIMulLatION!! Buuuuut… The basic point of FFB is to simulate the forces that are experienced in the real thing. It allows a sim to output actual real-life data through an entirely new sensory channel. Without FFB, sims only can simulate through the visual channel. Therefore, FFB in flight sims is a bigger deal than going from 2d instrument panels to 3d cockpits. Each plane has its own unique control feel profile throughout its flight envelope. That goes for aircraft with mechnical linkages, with hydraulics, and fly-by-wire. Without FFB, we are essentially completely blind to the aspect of how the controls of a particular plane feel, and how much is communicated to the pilot through changes in forces. Ideally, in a world where FFB was ubiquitous, DCS and any other sim developer would have to take FFB as a foundational aspect of their simulation Maybe we’ll get there someday. In the meantime, I can understand wanting to create a profile of forces when the sim does not simulate them, or if you know they are simulated incorrectly. It’s nice to have VPRhino’s software for that purpose. But it’s a bit like going to a restaurant and being expected that you invent your own recipe. Most people go to restaurants that have chefs that enjoy creating something that they think I should experience, because they are proud of the skill and artistry of creating and cooking their own recipe. Making our own FFB flight profiles should be viewed a stopgap only until developers start viewing FFB force profiles (throughout a flight envelope) as a foundational part of an aircraft’s flight model.

Yup it’s the only thing I do on DCS lol. I just enjoy exploring all the modules at the edge. My favorite spot to fly is in the mountains north east of senaki. Nap of the earth flight, 100ft agl at 15,000 feet msl over the top of the crests. Seeing your own shadow on the peaks as you lob yourself over them ballistically at 60kts. What an insane sight! Literally gets my blood pumping. In VR it’s better than having an IMAX movie theater strapped to your head. My previous fav in the mountain “skatepark” has been the Tomcat. But since release, the fulcrum has been the only plane I’ve flown. I just can’t bring myself to spend my DCS time on anything else, at least not yet. It has a fantastic feel in the air.

Are you on VR ? Unchecking sequential mirrors and choosing the higher resolution option every frame returned performance to how it was for me before the update. But Im on VR

Thanks for the explanation. I won’t say I’ve fully digested it yet lol, but I have a better understanding of the other factors involved. Edit to add: it’s a bit mindblowing to think, not only of the interplay of the different parts of the control architecture, but of how that interplay changes in different flight regimes. It’s quite an orchestra that aerospace engineers are putting together!

1. That is very interesting. I hadn’t thought about the possible effects of the aileron being tilted up on yaw tendencies when rolling. But, I’ll be honest, I’m having a time understanding what factors go into negating the relative difference in lift/drag on wings being commanded to roll. Not saying that it doesn’t do what you say, but just that aerodynamics are complicated and I cant wrap my head around it. 2. So the rudders aren’t used at all in the simulation’s FCS currently? I could have sworn I’ve seen and felt them moving around.

I don’t know if I’m missing something or if I’m losing it, but the Mig29 doesn’t control roll through spoilers. It uses ailerons. Also, I haven’t heard the word “proverse” being used to described yaw tendencies. Generally speaking, only adverse yaw occurs when ailerons are responsible for commanding the roll. Ailerons will always cause induced drag on the wing that rises because anything being lifted results in more drag. That drag “pulls” the lifting wing backwards, which is the same thing as saying it yaws the airplane opposite of the roll direction. I know aerodynamics are complicated (especially on fighters), but I don’t think it possible for ailerons (being used on their own) to induce a yaw into the roll direction. The “proverse” yaw you’re seeing is probably the rudder input being commanded by the FCS/stabilization system. Most large/heavy airplanes have some sort of system that commands inside rudder to cancel out the adverse yaw and keep the turn coordinated. Recently I did see someone comment about both ailerons both resting at a positive angle, but for the purpose increasing the washout effect of the wing as a whole (not to address adverse yaw). Washout describes the amount of twist built into a wing. With the twist resulting in a wing that has less AOA near the tips, than it does near the wing root, which is meant to guarantee the root stalls before the outboard portion of the wing, which theoretically results in milder/more controllable stall charcteristics. Setting those ailerons to have the positive angle sounds like a neat little trick the designers used to simplify the process of producing the wing. As I would imagine that allows them to build a flat wing instead of one with a twist. Or say the wings are built with washout, using the ailerons in such a way could fine tune the intended effects if the designed washout twist was found to be insufficient during flight testing.

A little late to the party on this thread… I agree that the F-1 is very sensitive directionally on the landing roll out. However, I view this behavior as a very good simulation of what you would expect with tall, narrow track-width gear that are mounted so closely to the longitudinal axis of the fuselage. Essentially, the airframe can rotate around its long axis much easier than it could on gear mounted further outboard, or on the wings. And when you add the fact that trailing link landing gear often allow for a longer suspension stroke, it ends up in keeling around turns like a 1970s Buick Station wagon without sway bars. The F-16 has similarly mounted gear, very close to the long-axis of the fuselage. But the suspension design has a much shorter stroke (and is firmer) compared to the softly sprung trailing link arrangement of the F-1. A firm, short stroke limits how deeply the F-16 leans when turning at speed, making it more stable on roll out. It will still flip over, but it doesn’t lean as much before doing so. The F-18 also has fuselage mounted gear, and a trailing link arrangement with a very long suspension stroke. However, it probably feels way more stable on roll-out because the gear are mounted further away from the longitudinal axis, and the airplane is seems relatively lower to the ground with full weight on wheels. These both contribute to making the plane more stable, because it can’t roll about the longitudal axis as easily when experiencing side-loads. Basically, this behavior is what makes DCS awesome. It shows you can model the unique behaviors expected for different types of landing gear designs/arrangements. From my point of view, this is definitely a not a bug, it’s a feature (it’s not to say I can judge the minute details of the modeling, because nobody has lent me their F-1 to fly around. But the general behavior tracks with what you’d expect for its configuration). (Sorry, pun lol).

Please accept my apology, because I see now that you were clear in your first response saying that it would be revisited and improved. It seems the combination of me responding before having my morning coffee, and my memory of previous discussion of this topic, led me to not read and comprehend what you plainly stated above. As far as how long it takes, I’m content to wait until you guys can devote the time needed to the issue. HB has a long history of continuously improving their modules, so I’m confident it will eventually be addressed.

Does that mean that the real airplane does not actually have a stick-pusher? Or does the 17kg of force get pulsed through the stick every time you reach AOA limit ?

I appreciate this topic coming up again, because your previous responses say it works as intended. Personally, the explanation for the desirability of this reflection behavior don’t make any sense to me in light of the perfect mirror behavior of fhe F-14 and Viggen. I haven’t seen any VR users say this is a desirable feature in the F-4. In fact, it’s vertigo inducing and uncomfortable in VR. I don’ fly this module anymore because this, along with the lagging stick movement responses, create a very uncomfortable VR experience, unlike any other module in DCS. I guess what I’m hoping to see in this thread is an acknowledgement that mirror lag is a problem, not a solution to a problem I didn’t realize existed in any other HB module. That’s why hearing your response as a HB representative saying that this issue has been previously reported, but that it’s working as intended, is not comforting. It’s just saying that HB aren’t going to change it because it’s by design. I’m giving HB user feedback saying this particular design choice is creating some pretty significant problems, and solving none (at least based on not experiencing reflection problems in other modules). If HB is solving a problem with this reflection behavior, it’s completely unclear to me what the problem actually is, at least based your current explanation.

Hmm, that’s odd, since it’s in VR (Quest 3) that I notice the large orbs. I saw the orbs a little over a mile away. If you zoom out more, does the light rendering pop back in, with excessive blooming/brightness? From what I’ve seen, the rendering of nav lights will change from OK, to annoying, to ridiculous looking UFOs within a short span of increased distance. The easiest way to see this is to simply look at a plane in external view and zoom out. In VR, it seems it’s all messed up regardless of the headset resolution or in-game PD setting I’m using. And if I had to guess, the rendering is applied exactly the same way for 2d, and would also result in light orbs that completely block out the airplane. It’s just that at high resolution on a flat screen, it might be less apparent because the small details on flat screens generally seem to require more “observing effort” to interpret what’s on the screen. VR is literally “in your face”, and the immersion seems to make the act of observing more natural and much easier. I think it’s this immersion that makes it hard to ignore the errors in scaling and brightness of small nav lights. VR resolution might play a small role in all this, but I don’t think it’s the primary thing causing the lights to look bad. They look bad because the brightness and size of blooming/orbing doesn’t correlate to distance.

That’s true, I know this because I just bought it lol. But fixing VR seems to be a matter of just giving it a little attention. It seems to be a little better compared to when I trialed CA a few years ago. I can drive things around fine, but the weapon sighting isn’t adapted for 2 eyes, and is largely impossible. It wont take much to fix that type of issue for VR (just a fixed sight). Everything else is fine in VR from what I could tell. The issue is that there’s a lot of little issues that need a little attention. But the basics are there. A lot of it is just art, like vehicle interiors, and more binding schemes for vehicles (tanks vs cars) and weapons. The biggest thing I didn’t like is that vehicles don’t steer smoothly, in the sense that the is seems like the vehicles angular direction changes in tiny quick steps that get perceived in as low FPS. In VR it causes a bit of nasuea making left and right turns in a city. But, I think the concept of walking up to a mig29 has legs (sorry, pun). Or any other vehicle. At will. And I think CA would be a way ED can implement this functionality, and justify putting dev time into improving it.