Bf109-K4 control loads at higher speeds...

[Solty]

Yoyo. You want to say that roll rate of bf 109 now is correct at speeds of 550 to 750 kph?

 

Also we are talking here human strength. Doing quick maneuvers with 30kg on the stick using one hand is implausible

Edited February 3, 2015 by Solty

[gavagai]

Very interesting discussion.

 

DCS is working against years of inertia, where in every computer flight sim the 109 would lawn-dart easier than other fighters. It started with one British report about the 109E where a pilot trimmed into the dive and could have killed himself, and 50 years later a programmer didn't think twice about what he was reading.:disgust:

[Kwiatek]

If ailerons in K-4 was the same like in G version there shouldn't be noticable difference between. So at high speeds 109 should got decrasing roll rate like in NACA chart.

 

I dunno if K-4 got flettner tabs on ailerons, probably it got the same frise airleons like earlier versions?

[GrapeJam]

Look, assuming there's a superhuman pilot behind the stick, there's still this question: could the control surfaces endure that kind of force?

[Kwiatek]

The report has Mach numbers line over diagrams so the Mach number of reverse can easily be obtained. Or, as far as I can remember, the alitude (that defines Mach number for a certain IAS).

 

Unfortunately i got problem with find exacly at which speed IAS/MAch and altitude there was reverse in Fw 190 trim :(

 

Also still got problem to imagine how pull up stick force is icreasing ( from 0.62 Mach) where still is need to keep elevator down position ( push stick up to 0.7 Mach).

 

In 109 it was more logical - there was need to constant keep push elevator ( ab 2 deg) and push stick force was icreasing with speed from 20 kg initialy to 25-30 kg at higher speeds.

 

Im only pilot not flight engineer :P

Edited February 3, 2015 by Kwiatek

[PhoenixBvo]

in DCS we decided to have controls movement, so control surfaces as they are in reality. That's the point. This way the simulated FM fits the real one regarding required stick movement. Of course we understood that shorter travel of the majority of game controllers will require less travels to get the same result comparing the real aircraft. Nevertheless, this model gives good feeling even if you get the real plane stick after hundreds hours in virtual plane. I had an opportunity to compare the real P-51 to its DCS twin... the feeling was that the real plane behaves exactly the same you use to feel it in DCS regardless of higher forces at the controls.

 

Excessive control forces in any simulation can be done using so called cutting force (any movement of the virtual stick are not available beyond this point) preceding with the zone of low responce agility. So, for example, you can pull the stick up to 70 kg but accurate piloting is not available since the force is higher than, say, 20-30 kg.

 

Thank you for the elaborate answer!

 

I was under the impression that flight experience is more force based rather than position based.

 

I think the cutting force with a zone of low response agility amounts to about the same effect as what I meant under option 2. The important point is that there is a gradual flattening of the response preceding the cutting force.

 

Awaiting your model of this in an upcoming patch with high expectations! :thumbup:

[effte]

I was under the impression that flight experience is more force based rather than position based.

 

It is. We're pretty much exclusively concerned about force response out in the real world, power levers being the obvious exception.

[PhoenixBvo]

It is. We're pretty much exclusively concerned about force response out in the real world, power levers being the obvious exception.

 

Hence my suggestion:

or you can attempt to simulate the pilot experience within the limits given by inadequate hardware: Simulated aircraft inputs are now control forces, and the joystick input is filtered to provide a mapping from joystick position to simulated pilot control force. Now you can equate max joystick deflection to max pilot control force and provide some nonlinear function for lower forces to give the "right" feel. (The input curve setup allows some user customization, but it is flight condition independent)

 

But as I understood from Yo-Yo's answer ED decided to basically map the the joystick axis to the controls position directly, but to cut off the response at the maximum pilot force and add a zone of stiffening before that.

I hope it will look like the green curve (the red line would be the direct position mapping):

 

This means we get a flight condition dependent stiffening of the controls as desired. It is another approach than a force mapping, but may yield similar results. Perhaps there are advantages in the lower deflection range (implied by Yo-Yo) by doing it this way.

[Crumpp]

Very interesting discussion.

 

DCS is working against years of inertia, where in every computer flight sim the 109 would lawn-dart easier than other fighters. It started with one British report about the 109E where a pilot trimmed into the dive and could have killed himself, and 50 years later a programmer didn't think twice about what he was reading.

 

Exactly. There is a lot of that in the World War II genre, unfortunately.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Hence my suggestion:

 

I have edited since I started to break my wing tips in the K4, my pitch and roll input curves pretty much the way you suggest, using saturation.

 

Unfortunately DCS axis fine tuning doesn't let me use asymmetric saturation / curves for the various axis, as I was able to do in Rise of Flight :-(

 

It's not the ideal solution, but feels much better to me this way...

Edited February 3, 2015 by jcomm

[PhoenixBvo]

Input curves being flight condition independent is your biggest problem there...

[NineLine]

Exactly. There is a lot of that in the World War II genre, unfortunately.

 

Yes, these new advanced FM's ED is producing have to fight years and years of bad habits we have gained from lesser scripted FMs. People just need to have a more open mind when something doesnt fly like game XXX...

[Viersbovsky]

Hence my suggestion:

 

But as I understood from Yo-Yo's answer ED decided to basically map the the joystick axis to the controls position directly, but to cut off the response at the maximum pilot force and add a zone of stiffening before that.

I hope it will look like the green curve (the red line would be the direct position mapping):

This means we get a flight condition dependent stiffening of the controls as desired. It is another approach than a force mapping, but may yield similar results. Perhaps there are advantages in the lower deflection range (implied by Yo-Yo) by doing it this way.

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134378

It is already very noticeable in the Dora, and I think works quite well as a work-around to our limited imput-hardware. Just open the control indicator and try to roll the Dora at higher speeds - maximum throw will decrease a lot.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134378

It is already very noticeable in the Dora, and I think works quite well as a work-around to our limited imput-hardware. Just open the control indicator and try to roll the Dora at higher speeds - maximum throw will decrease a lot.

 

 

Ok! This is about ALL I could ask for, and I confess I wasn't really aware of it!!!!

 

For me this is GREAT NEWS, although after all it's there since a good while, only I didn't know!

 

Now IMO it's just a question of fine tuning it for each aircraft model.

 

Thx for the precious info Viersbovsky !!!

[DB 605]

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=134378

It is already very noticeable in the Dora, and I think works quite well as a work-around to our limited imput-hardware. Just open the control indicator and try to roll the Dora at higher speeds - maximum throw will decrease a lot.

 

This is what i have wrote in couple of other topics too - try mustang and fw in higher speed and you'll see. But i don't understand why YO-YO or someone else from inside could not just say "guys, it's not yet implemented to K4" instead of asking what is wrong in current version? That way this kind of topics would be needless and there would be much less uncertainty and speculation. Maybe it's because "language barrier" leads to misunderstandings or maybe YO-YO is just having fun with our expense :)

[NineLine]

Or maybe he gets disheartened by comments like this:

 

SoltyII2 days ago

 

We are now battling for it be changed. But the FM designer says it is how it should be...:( Why is it so hard to get a good FM?:(

[Yo-Yo]

Yoyo. You want to say that roll rate of bf 109 now is correct at speeds of 550 to 750 kph?

 

Also we are talking here human strength. Doing quick maneuvers with 30kg on the stick using one hand is implausible

 

I am still able to pull 32 kg quite fast... :) especially with two hands. Anyway, pulling "at once" is not good not only for the hand but for the whole plane. If you do not believe me - take a look at the NACA report.

 

I will check this roll speed with German curves.

[Yo-Yo]

Hence my suggestion:

 

But as I understood from Yo-Yo's answer ED decided to basically map the the joystick axis to the controls position directly, but to cut off the response at the maximum pilot force and add a zone of stiffening before that.

I hope it will look like the green curve (the red line would be the direct position mapping):

 

This means we get a flight condition dependent stiffening of the controls as desired. It is another approach than a force mapping, but may yield similar results. Perhaps there are advantages in the lower deflection range (implied by Yo-Yo) by doing it this way.

 

This non-linearity is completely useless to simulate inaccuracy (many of people always have this non-linearity for their joysticks). It's a kind of dynamic inaccuracy because, at least, there is no problem to put even 32 kg weight to the desired point. But not fast.

[DB 605]

Or maybe he gets disheartened by comments like this:

 

Yeah i can understand that but if you look start of this topic it was quite no-nonsense in my opinion.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Guys,

 

probably if / when we get the same effect described regarding the Dora and the P51d, where the efficacy of the pitch and roll ( or is it just roll ? ) axis is reduced with dynamics pressure, we can get an even better behavior from the K4 ?

[PhoenixBvo]

This non-linearity is completely useless to simulate inaccuracy (many of people always have this non-linearity for their joysticks). It's a kind of dynamic inaccuracy because, at least, there is no problem to put even 32 kg weight to the desired point. But not fast.

 

OK, so "the zone of low responce agility" you mentioned is implemented as a responsiveness lag, like a low-pass filter?

 

I'd still think the nonlinearity in the plot is useful to avoid a "hard stop" in the stationary response. Otherwise you cutoff the effective joystick travel and thereby miss out on the highest spring forces of the joystick deflection.

 

BTW Just to clarify what I meant in the plot: The non-linearity in the curve is not the same as an axis curve in the setup as it depends on the simstick position corresponding to the cutting force at the current flight condition.

Edited February 3, 2015 by PhoenixBvo

[Yo-Yo]

This is what i have wrote in couple of other topics too - try mustang and fw in higher speed and you'll see. But i don't understand why YO-YO or someone else from inside could not just say "guys, it's not yet implemented to K4" instead of asking what is wrong in current version? That way this kind of topics would be needless and there would be much less uncertainty and speculation. Maybe it's because "language barrier" leads to misunderstandings or maybe YO-YO is just having fun with our expense :)

 

Don't you think that I just do not know exactly what version you use? I use only current trunk and have no opportunity to watch the last user's version and all changes in it. But I think that some of you, gentlemen, can determine if the controls deflection in 109 really limited or they are not limited at all. If they are not limited at all while other planes have them limited - is it possible to have an idea that in you version of BETA it is not implemented yet?

 

Yes, I feel real joy looking at the whining about 50 g in Su-27 beta from the people who just discussed broken wings of the Mustang. Moreover, these guys seriously asked "is this the famous PFM?".

 

I guess it's not a language barrier if even our moderator from Canada does not understand this kind of whining... :)

[Crumpp]

Yes, these new advanced FM's ED is producing have to fight years and years of bad habits we have gained from lesser scripted FMs. People just need to have a more open mind when something doesnt fly like game XXX...

 

Exactly.

 

The opportunity cost of providing aerodynamics lessons or spending time clearing up these misconception comes directly out of the Spitfire, P-47, and other aircraft development. I think players should understand that.

[NineLine]

Exactly.

 

The opportunity cost of providing aerodynamics lessons or spending time clearing up these misconception comes directly out of the Spitfire, P-47, and other aircraft development. I think players should understand that.

 

The F-15 and Su 27 are also examples of this as well, and it was based on the SFM they had previously... all of a sudden they were very different than we were used to, and now we arent Aces anymore... "Grab the pitch forks!"

 

Here is the bottomline on this.

 

Yo-Yo and ED make some incredible FMs, we have seen it with the P-51, and with the 190. To assume they just lost all sense or can no longer make a good FM is insulting and rude...

 

Here is how this thread should have been handled.

 

I have noted a bug. I dont see this issue with other aircraft, here is my track, here are some charts (or whatever evidence you might have to show an issue). Can anyone confirm.

 

Others might confirm, its a bug.

 

Yo-Yo comes along (or an ED Tester or other person from ED), states its not seen on his end, we can safely assume that the fixes have just not trickled down to us yet. But its acknowledged by ED.

 

Next update comes out.

 

Confirm the issues is fixed, if not report here, Yo-Yo or a tester can see if it still needs to be merged or if it is not able to be merged yet for other reasons (there are many fixes for many things waiting on the 2.0 release)

 

Issues I have with this thread, and unfortunately many others like it.

 

The rude delivery some of you have. As an example, that quote I posted above.

 

The lack of understanding that ED looks at a broader range of documents and data than most of us are aware of that are in existence, share your info if you like, but one report does not make an FM, nor is it usually enough to change one, especially something like a US test on a repaired busted ass captured aircraft.... for example.

 

Dont use the language barrier crap... seriously dont. Phrases and slang might throw someone that isnt a native speaker in that tongue, but nobody on here probably speaks aero better than Yo-Yo, and he does pretty good with English, I have chatted enough with him to confirm that.

 

Dont use other sims/games as reference... if you find their FM's more "realistic", then by all means... enjoy them, but their findings are not a source of argument for DCS changes, they simply dont model every aspect that DCS does, so there is just no relevance there... ED tirelessly researches these FMs, if they are missing something they will ask, we have seen it before. So its not like ED is stuck up and unwilling to accept documents or facts from other sources.

 

BETA.... this aircraft is still in BETA. Remember that before snapping off towards anyone here.

Edited February 3, 2015 by NineLine

[DB 605]

Don't you think that I just do not know exactly what version you use? I use only current trunk and have no opportunity to watch the last user's version and all changes in it.

 

Ok, thanks for letting me know, i really did not know that.

 

But I think that some of you, gentlemen, can determine if the controls deflection in 109 really limited or they are not limited at all. If they are not limited at all while other planes have them limited - is it possible to have an idea that in you version of BETA it is not implemented yet?

 

Agreed, and that's actually what i have wrote also on some topics. But as you see, it's not clear for everyone.

 

Yes, I feel real joy looking at the whining about 50 g in Su-27 beta from the people who just discussed broken wings of the Mustang. Moreover, these guys seriously asked "is this the famous PFM?".

 

I can definitely understand your frustration!

 

I guess it's not a language barrier if even our moderator from Canada does not understand this kind of whining... :)

 

Well, me neither. That was actually my point at first, to make things clearer for everyone to avoid this kind of unnecessary debates. As i was not aware of you don't know our game versions.