Steering/braking: Current, simplified behaviour or realistic?

[silverofx441]

I want it realistic and without the option. You can't have options for everything. Another thing is if simplified steering is included in Easy Flight option.

 

I'm going to agree here and tell you why and hopefully, this will be viewed as an honest no BS opinion and nothing else(IE no insult intended). We have DCS because we want top of the line modules which in turn will give us accurate behavior right? So far so good. So and so spends a lot a resources, money, time etc and comes out with a excellent module. Then if that airplane has a free turning castor wheel then so be it. If you don't have a rudder and/or the patience to learn to taxi an airplane with that type of system then what is the point of using a simulator like DCS? Because the way i see it, each times a particular aircraft behavior (accurate that is) displeases someone, the maker of the module has to spent more time and resources on something that will render the said plane... inaccurate.

You need a stick, a throttle and rudder to be able to use this game at its full potential. Just as much as you need a more powerful computer nowadays to be able to use ANY modern game that comes down the pike for that matter. To ask to waste time and effort to diminish the accuracy of a module because one doesn't have a fast enough computer or proper flight controls is rubbish.

 

So this is what i have done with my G940: i have mapped one of my button on my stick to emulate that handle on the left side of the real stick (like on a lot of Russian aircrafts by the way, get use to it), as i'm taxing if i want to turn left, i push that button and push left rudder. Works like a charm. I know cuz i have flown airplane with that kind of system.

I'm sorry but i really don't see what the problem is here. Like i said this is my honest to-the-point opinion not meant to insult anyone.

[Fishbreath]

I see where you're coming from, but you're making the mistake of assuming that every single person who might consider buying DCS is okay with that, when it's clearly not so—there isn't even unanimous agreement here that there shouldn't be the option, and the forums are probably ten times as hardcore as the average person playing the game. (This is just how forums work.)

 

That's why I think there ought to be the option, even if the work for taxi assist wasn't already done. You and I don't pay the bills for people like Eagle Dynamics and Leatherneck, it's the tens or hundreds of DCS customers for each one of us on the forums who do, and ignoring them is the quickest way to turn your vibrant simulator package into a ghost town that crumbles under its own weight.

[Corrigan]

I see where you're coming from, but you're making the mistake of assuming that every single person who might consider buying DCS is okay with that, when it's clearly not so—there isn't even unanimous agreement here that there shouldn't be the option, and the forums are probably ten times as hardcore as the average person playing the game. (This is just how forums work.)

 

That's why I think there ought to be the option, even if the work for taxi assist wasn't already done. You and I don't pay the bills for people like Eagle Dynamics and Leatherneck, it's the tens or hundreds of DCS customers for each one of us on the forums who do, and ignoring them is the quickest way to turn your vibrant simulator package into a ghost town that crumbles under its own weight.

 

Agreed. This is what I was alluding to above ("forum members aren't representative...").

 

Since they still have the realistic code (as per Cobra on MA's forum), I think this is as clear-cut an option candidate as anything.

[cichlidfan]

To ask to waste time and effort to diminish the accuracy of a module because one doesn't have a fast enough computer or proper flight controls is rubbish.

 

That would be a wonderful sentiment if they had not already done the 'time and effort' and, also, had not already 'diminished the accuracy'.

 

So your point would be...

Edited September 29, 2014 by cichlidfan

[Kenan]

The poll outcome says it all. Unless someone here believes those who voted YES aren't flying the sim.

[silverofx441]

I'm not making a mistake, i'm just stating my opinion. And i know where you're coming from as well, and i certainly respect that. Lets say i was thinking out loud, keeping in mind that both end of the spectrum should be represented here. And i still think there is way more hardcore simflyers than you think. Some other sim platforms are not as conciliant as DCS and they still are very popular with simmers. They just won't take time and money to "downgrade" an add-on that they just spent years in developing to make it super accurate (PMDG comes to mind here, as an example) just saying.

[silverofx441]

The poll outcome says it all. Unless someone here believes those who voted YES aren't flying the sim.

 

funny, i'm reading the posts and it's not as clear cut as you seem to think.

[statrekmike]

funny, i'm reading the posts and it's not as clear cut as you seem to think.

 

 

To be fair, either way you stand on this issue, the people on this specific forum topic are a VERY small sample size.

[lmp]

It's always a trade off - develop a feature that may attract more casual players, but also less agile players or those with worse equipment. Or don't develop it, save some money at the risk of scaring off those players (and getting the bad rep, because they didn't enjoy your game). Considering that in this case the simplification has already been done and also assuming - of course I may be wrong here - that this would be relatively simple, I'd go with an option. In a different scenario, I might be more in favor of just doing it the realistic way. Of course ultimately none of us know how difficult it is and whether LS have the resources and are willing to do this, but religiously being opposed to ANY form of catering to more casual players (not saying that anybody here is), regardless of the costs and benefits involved makes no sense to me.

Edited September 30, 2014 by lmp

[Why485]

Reading MBot's posts on the subject has me convinced that it was made that way it currently is for a good reason. Regardless, I see no reason why this shouldn't be an option for people who want to use a more realistic system.

 

I have brakes bound to a digital button, so I may not like how that works out a realistic system but I'd be curious to try. If it doesn't, I'll just go back to the current simplified system.

[NoJoe]

Regardless of how this goes, I'd hope the current behavior remains as the default, at least for "game" mode. Imagine the customer service claims if the only nose wheel steering was by differential braking, even if that is realistic!

 

You'd have loads of people wondering why their twist-stick rudder doesn't seem to work on the ground.

[Sceptre]

Would it be a requirement to have an axis for brakes with the realistic setting?

[Irregular programming]

Would it be a requirement to have an axis for brakes with the realistic setting?

 

Doubt it, it would just be more convenient, you could still tap the breaks.

 

funny, i'm reading the posts and it's not as clear cut as you seem to think.

 

I don't see anyone in the thread that are against the supposed change.

 

 

I want simplified steering as an option.

[zaelu]

Would be great a response from LN on this issue :) .

[Skulleader]

Hello again,

 

Once again I think that's easy as answer, this Mig-21 has a hardcore product so I think that we must have two option inside the Mig-21's menu: Easy mod and real mod, as it's the case for other modules.

For me I prefer the real mod, so YES for the original question.

Skull.

[ff4life4]

Would be great a response from LN on this issue :) .

 

+1. Hope they implement the option for us.. maybe by next patch :)

[streakeagle]

I had wondered about why the steering was working at such low speeds with a free castoring nosewheel. I understand the need to make such complex function optional and even making the simplified behavior the default option. However, the whole point of such a module is to be realistic as possible and not having the realistic option available seems silly. I am enjoying mastering the dual nature of the MiG-21bis. It is both simple and complex at the same time. If it is unnecessarily dumbed down, I might as well fly the FC3 F-15C.

[Aginor]

absolutely yes.

 

I talked about it with family members (not active here but also MiG pilots) and we all agreed that it should be as realistic as possible, even if that means more complex. I think an option in the option menu would be the best way.

[bart]

Voted yes.......DCS to me means realism.

[bart]

Here is something I just posted on another thread which was talking about the steering issue. Hope it helps!......

 

I'm reading a book at the moment called Red Eagles, about a classified program in the late 60's to early 80's when the USA had Mig's and were flying them in total secrecy alongside their Agressor squadrons to help make training as real as possible for their front line pilots.

 

I was reading last night and came across a paragraph taken from an interview from a US pilot that was explaining what it was like to fly the Mig-17, but he did say all Mig's had this same system of braking to turn whilst taxying. I won't quote the book word for word but here is the general picture of what he said. I think there is a typo in there which I added what I think it should have said in (brackets).

 

Taxying the airplanes was a bit of a trick. If you wanted to turn right, you pushed the left rudder bar in and you pulsed the brake lever on the control stick. That then dumped the pneumatic pressure to the left wheel brake and transferred it to the right wheel. You would get the free-swinging nose wheel to start to turn to the right, and then as you got ready to come out the turn you'd have to push the left (Right?) rudder bar passed neutral and you would have to start pumping the little lever again to get the power back on the left wheel, to get the nose wheel to straighten out so you could taxi straight.

 

He explained that a pilots first instructional session on the Mig was spent on the ground learning this technique as it was so different to what the pilots were used to.

 

I had to read it twice to make sense!!

[Sceptre]

Here is something I just posted on another thread which was talking about the steering issue. Hope it helps!......

 

I'm reading a book at the moment called Red Eagles, about a classified program in the late 60's to early 80's when the USA had Mig's and were flying them in total secrecy alongside their Agressor squadrons to help make training as real as possible for their front line pilots.

 

I was reading last night and came across a paragraph taken from an interview from a US pilot that was explaining what it was like to fly the Mig-17, but he did say all Mig's had this same system of braking to turn whilst taxying. I won't quote the book word for word but here is the general picture of what he said. I think there is a typo in there which I added what I think it should have said in (brackets).

 

Taxying the airplanes was a bit of a trick. If you wanted to turn right, you pushed the left rudder bar in and you pulsed the brake lever on the control stick. That then dumped the pneumatic pressure to the left wheel brake and transferred it to the right wheel. You would get the free-swinging nose wheel to start to turn to the right, and then as you got ready to come out the turn you'd have to push the left (Right?) rudder bar passed neutral and you would have to start pumping the little lever again to get the power back on the left wheel, to get the nose wheel to straighten out so you could taxi straight.

 

He explained that a pilots first instructional session on the Mig was spent on the ground learning this technique as it was so different to what the pilots were used to.

 

I had to read it twice to make sense!!

 

I would really like to see an option to have it complex like this in DCS... and thanks for sharing, it was a good read )

[Bassly]

First making it realistic way and then giving a simplified option would make completely sense, but this way around. I don't even... So yes, realistic steering/braking pretty please. (Insert stereotypical "Fix it now/I want it now" here.)

[Krebs20]

Red Eagles is a great book. Would recommend to anyone who likes Mig-17, 19, 21, or 23. Some great incite on what the US airforce really thought of the Russian aircraft.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Here is something I just posted on another thread which was talking about the steering issue. Hope it helps!......

 

I'm reading a book at the moment called Red Eagles, about a classified program in the late 60's to early 80's when the USA had Mig's and were flying them in total secrecy alongside their Agressor squadrons to help make training as real as possible for their front line pilots.

 

I was reading last night and came across a paragraph taken from an interview from a US pilot that was explaining what it was like to fly the Mig-17, but he did say all Mig's had this same system of braking to turn whilst taxying. I won't quote the book word for word but here is the general picture of what he said. I think there is a typo in there which I added what I think it should have said in (brackets).

 

Taxying the airplanes was a bit of a trick. If you wanted to turn right, you pushed the left rudder bar in and you pulsed the brake lever on the control stick. That then dumped the pneumatic pressure to the left wheel brake and transferred it to the right wheel. You would get the free-swinging nose wheel to start to turn to the right, and then as you got ready to come out the turn you'd have to push the left (Right?) rudder bar passed neutral and you would have to start pumping the little lever again to get the power back on the left wheel, to get the nose wheel to straighten out so you could taxi straight.

 

He explained that a pilots first instructional session on the Mig was spent on the ground learning this technique as it was so different to what the pilots were used to.

 

I had to read it twice to make sense!!

 

Using left pedal for a right turn? That doesn't sound right, even less practical. How does one take off then with a cross wind when the rudder would be pointing in the wrong direction?

 

Unless someone with actual Mig experience can confirm the above IMHO the typo is in the first paragraph where the right pedal should be used to turn to the right and not the one you bracketed.

[bart]

Using left pedal for a right turn? That doesn't sound right, even less practical. How does one take off then with a cross wind when the rudder would be pointing in the wrong direction?

 

Unless someone with actual Mig experience can confirm the above IMHO the typo is in the first paragraph where the right pedal should be used to turn to the right and not the one you bracketed.

 

I think that whilst on the ground taxying, the rudder is playing no part due to low forward speed so differential braking is used, hence the left rudder input together with the brake lever being pumped on/off to dump pressure in the left brake and transferring it to the right, therefore differential braking takes effect.

 

On take off you want to go straight so the free castor nose wheel is already pointing down the runway, the pilot opens the throttle, but does not apply the brake lever, the rudder then acts as normal once airflow over the tail fin takes effect giving normal directional control on the take off run. If any directional corrections are required using the brake lever and opposite rudder on the take off run they would be very small corrections and as the aircrafts forward speed would be low, rudder on its own would have no effect.

 

NOTE......before I get flamed here this is just my interpretation of what I read in the book.....and the paragraph was taken from an actual interview with a US pilot that flew the Mig on a regular basis and was an IP pilot on it!.