Question to TM Warthog Users

[CrackerJack]

The manual page 18 states that no matter what joystick you have you should setup a small deadzone 1-3 and curvature 20-25 pitch and 10-25 roll. When I'm flying the A10C or the F15 I've always used linear input and no deadzone. Do you follow the manual recommendation and fly with curvature? I'm no expert but I wonder what makes the Mig21 model need the axis tuning?

[Derbysieger]

No deadzone and linear input for me. I use a linear profile for all fixed wing aircraft in DCS but for beginners a curve and a deadzone might make things easier. However, it will also make the profile more sensitive towards the edge of the sticks movement range which will make hard, low speed maneuvers at the edge of the aircrafts flight envelope a lot harder to control.

[Koekemoeroetoe]

I always flew without any curvature or deadzone and that went well, but since MiG-21 I added a 25 curvature to pitch, roll and yaw axis of all aircraft.

 

For me it makes a huge difference, because I now can fly the aircraft with way more precision. I find especially helicopters are way more easy to fly now, but also small adjustments in your plane's flightpath are way easier to make now (for example lining up for landing, or lining your A-10C up for a gun run).

 

I don't know whether it is because I'm not an expert at flying (yet no beginner either) or, what I think, because the joystick is rather short compared to a real thing. Personally, I would recommend adding a curvature for every aircraft, but its entirely up to you to do that or not.

[Art-J]

I seem to recall Novak's reply somewhere here, stating that response curve on the real MiG is not quite linear either. Don't remember the details though.

 

I use ~25% curvature on my stock Warthog, because of spring stiffness and "sticktion" problem. Working on my own extension though, so when it's done, maybe I'll change these settings somewhat.

[xxJohnxx]

I didn't use any curvature at all at the beginning, but upon reading Novak's post about the curvature being realistic for the MiG I added it as well.

 

I seem to recall Novak's reply somewhere here, stating that response curve on the real MiG is not quite linear either. Don't remember the details though.

 

I am still confused though why they don't have a curvature normally in there if it is realistic. They thinker with the control inputs anyway (speed dependency on pitch for example) so why don't have the curvature programmed in, and keep the joystick setting on the default linear value?

[zaelu]

For people with FFB joysticks I think linear and no dead zone is mandatory. I never touch the pitch and roll axis.

[Flagrum]

For people with FFB joysticks I think linear and no dead zone is mandatory. I never touch the pitch and roll axis.

Correct. I don't know if this is a limitation of the drivers or a shortcoming of DCS, but the forces are set to the position the curve defines, not the physical position. This is at least completely useless if you fly helos. Other aircraft might work, though.

 

What happens is (Helo example):

You want to trim the stick half way forward (50% of the physical range). But for this position the curve defines for example 25% deflection. If you now trim, the stick gets set to the physical position of 1/4 forward (25%)! But for the physical position of 25%, the curve defines i.e. 10% - so you would have to push the stick forward to get it to the physical 50% (which in return, according to the curve, yields in 25% input to DCS). So trimming is useless this way.

 

Seems that in the back and forth between (stick <--> driver) <--> (cuve setting <--> DCS aircraft) a conversion calculation is left out ...

 

Or the problem is, that the curve's origin is always the physical center, but for a helo you would need it to be the current FFB force center.

 

edit:

thinking about it ... for systems like in the MiG, it really could work! The difference here is, that you don't deflect the stick and trim it there like in a helo (i.e. your goal is to set the physical position). Instead you trim using the hat on the stick and DCS moves the physical stick (your goal is to archieve a certain aircraft attitude, not a stick position). For us it makes little difference if DCS wants to set the stick to 50% but because of the curve we end in fact at 25% - as long as in-cockpit and physical stick both agree on a common virtual(!) position.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Flagrum

[CrackerJack]

I am still confused though why they don't have a curvature normally in there if it is realistic. They thinker with the control inputs anyway (speed dependency on pitch for example) so why don't have the curvature programmed in, and keep the joystick setting on the default linear value?

 

This was my thought also! To satisfy my curiosity I hope there is an explanation.

[zaelu]

+1

 

I thought the ARU system is messing enough with the controls curves why should we induce a another variable by superimposing another curvature that would normally do only bad making the controls feel mushy.

 

Is like I have curves on the axis of my stick and then make the same stick move a virtual mouse that is then modified by responsive curves in windows mouse drivers. The pointer on the screen would feel unnatural and sluggish.

 

A point of view on this from LNS would be good.