Jump to content

stick forces-please make them optional


Recommended Posts

ok...flying now in the open beta, i realise they have implemented stick forces, and what that means....

simple example...i pull the stick back, and keep it at a certain position at 400kph...while i keep the stick in the same position, the virtual stick moves slowly and continuously more and more back, resulting in a tighter and tighter turn...

no way this is more realistic.

its just a different approach.and i have to say, i hate it.(i know a strong word)

 

the former approach(stick position=virtual stick position) is way more intuitive for me personally.its what i really appreciated in dcs.

 

now of course, if stick forces would be too high to overcome by a pilot, then this should of course be restricted in game.

 

BUT: please make this "stick forces" thing an optional setting just like the virtual head movement....it got nothing to do with being more or less realistc, but its two different approaches on a problem....

 

i realise there are probably many people who appreciate those stick forces, but please dont force it on people who do not like that.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 244
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The way I see it, with the speed dropping in a continuous turn, so do the forces on the elevator - hence the "restriction" going away slowly and virtual stick movement increase. Sounds like a reasonable way of solving the forces problem.

 

I also can't see it being made optional like the head movement, because unlike the head movement, elevator response affects combat capabilities - so in multiplayer You either get players flying 109s of different turning performance (bad idea), or You have to organize two separate servers for players with option "on" and option "off" (even worse idea given rather low number of WWII servers and participants).

  • Like 1

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

  • Like 1

Ніщо так сильно не ранить мозок, як уламки скла від розбитих рожевих окулярів

There is nothing so hurtful for the brain as splinters of broken rose-coloured spectacles.

Ничто так сильно не ранит мозг, как осколки стекла от разбитых розовых очков (С) Me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

 

 

This is true, and basically a man needs to know his aircraft's limitations and his own for that matter. Even before these changes came along, pilots should have had some self restraints in their flying, it is not a rodeo...and so now we have this

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

 

Well, I'm not able to try this Beta because I have no DCS version presently installed, but if stick forces were modeled this way I am almost sure I will approve it :-)

 

For me it is the most plausible way of modelling it, in the absence of proper FF controllers !!!

 

Great update in this are Yo-Yo !!! THANKS!!!!!

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

Absolutely correct! Glad to hear it is in there! Is it on all axes now?

 

 

To expand on why it really is the only route to go: If you run the math you will find that the G force per Newton of stick force tends to remain fairly constant for reversible control systems*. This means that for a constant force used, the deflection will decrease with increasing airspeed.

 

We fly aircraft based on control forces, as we as human beings are notoriously bad at sensing the positions of our limbs. The latter tends to surprise people, but we feel the forces used to counteract gravity and reverse calculate the positions. In a zero G environment, you typically won't know where your hands are unless you can see them.

 

The only way to implement this realistically in a simulator is to translate the constant joystick force used for a given joystick deflection into a constant virtual stick force, and deflect the virtual stick correspondingly - which seems to be what Yo-Yo has implemented.

 

Now, I don't see a problem with adding an option to simply cap the virtual stick deflection and maintaing a 1:1 joystick deflection/stick deflection relationship for those who prefer to go that route, but they are likely to be completely outclassed by those who adjust to realistic force flying. I suspect it would be one of those options only used for a short while for those having a hard time making the transition, and then only adding confusion.

 

My advice would be to stick with it (:D). There's good evidence that a force based system is an excellent option.

 

Cheers,

/Fred

 

*) The MiG-15 being a notable exception, with severely undesirable handling traits! If those are modelled accurately, we'll never see the end of that thread!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its definitly step into right direction Yo-Yo.

 

Wonder if stick forces are implement in K-4 only casue i see not much difference in D-9?

 

I checked 109 roll rate and got quite accurate results: roll with rudder at 400 kph - ab. 4 sec, at 600 kph - about 8-9 second so similar to known data for 109 G version. Also much more heavy elevator at high speeds.

 

Notice that at very high speeds rudder is more effective then airleons - as i remember some 109 test report claimed that rudder was the most effective control in 109 also at high speeds.

 

I hope all non bosted controls planes will have these.


Edited by Kwiatek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

 

 

Are we going to see similar behaviour on other aircrafts aswell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The P-51 already has stick forces. No idea about the 190, but it was supposed to have very light controls.

P-51D | Fw 190D-9 | Bf 109K-4 | Spitfire Mk IX | P-47D | WW2 assets pack | F-86 | Mig-15 | Mig-21 | Mirage 2000C | A-10C II | F-5E | F-16 | F/A-18 | Ka-50 | Combined Arms | FC3 | Nevada | Normandy | Straight of Hormuz | Syria

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

Big +1.

How to make a joystick with a uni-joint and hall effect sensors: http://www.mycockpit.org/forums/content.php?r=88-Hall-Effects-Sensors-to-make-a-joystick

How to make a simpler gimbal with more features: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fsqV5IVW1RrkoS5niRO-zZdL8sXE0kez

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an unfortunate side effect of not having a ffb stick. You fly an aircraft with control forces while you're non-ffb stick is based on position. Just about every plane will prevent a pilot from overstressing the aircraft with high control forces at high speeds (even through artificial means). This can't be properly simulated with a non-ffb stick. What you are seeing with the stick coming back as you slow down is what you would naturally do in an actual plane or with a ffb stick, it just looks really unnatural when you have the stick at max travel for obvious reasons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

 

 

no nothing to do with realism.as i said the way i see it its two different approaches on a problem...now the stick moves, even if you have your joysitck held in a certain position.how is that realistic?

 

before we had "position input" and now we have "force input".

 

until ED produces high quality hydraulic force feeback input controllers shipped with each module only compatible with them, the only correct approach would be to make that optional and not force it onto its customer. i know i am in a minorty and many will love this "i cant stall anymore" effect, but being used to real planes as well, i felt the former approach towards the problem way more intuitive...


Edited by 9./JG27 DavidRed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Now, I don't see a problem with adding an option to simply cap the virtual stick deflection and maintaing a 1:1 joystick deflection/stick deflection relationship for those who prefer to go that route, but they are likely to be completely outclassed

 

let that be my problem then...

 

My advice would be to stick with it (:D). There's good evidence that a force based system is an excellent option.

 

yes, as an option to choose!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it were optional everyone would opt out...

 

Ok you can rip your wing off at will but you can also turn tighter... Pull out of that 500mph dive Etc.

 

Even FFB isn't the answer. Unless you build an FFB stick capable of reproducing the real forces.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the problem is, you can still pull out even at a 700kph+ dive without a problem in the open beta with the stick forces active...

 

and as you say it, until there are sticks capable of reproducing the real forces, there is no right or wrong....so make it optional, and of course implement restrictions where pilots just cannot produce the force anymore(i.e. high speed dives, thats what i said in the first post)

 

now though, the pilot isnt even able anymore to pull completely back at 300kph. what you get is a very whobbly and inaccurate feeling.(cant describe it better) where you sit in your chair and yank your stick around like mad, to make the plane move a little.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, gentlemen, you have very differnet ideas about stick movement. We had whinings that this forces were not implemented and it was awfull and not realistic, now we are told that this restrictions are not realistic.

 

So, I have to say that RESTRICTIONS ARE REALISTIC because they make the plane as close to its handling characteristics as game controllers allow to do.

 

THe only way to overcome this - to train different ways to control the plane. For example - not to pull the joystick beyond the point you feel you can not increase the turn rate further.

THe turn rate itself and the speed are good cues to feel the plane behaviour.

 

then i will quote yourself again what you said earlier:

 

"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."

 

and i agree with that completely...i cant understand why you now force the exact oposite on us...make it optional and everybody will be happy.


Edited by 9./JG27 DavidRed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

also these stick forces are completely left out for the rudder....so at any speed you can still push the rudder completely the full range without a problem....

so what we have now, is a mixed thing...

 

the elevators are affected by the stick forces, and are pretty unresponsive now.(i think its overdone as well...at 300kph a pilot is not able to pull the stick fully back?i doubt that)

 

the ailerons are affected as well...by far not that much though(seems correct considering the lower forces you need for ailerons)

 

the rudder though is not affected...in this combination, it now feels completely wrong(especially as the rudder probably even in a 109 is very likely the one control surface you need the most force to move it at higher speeds).

at a 700kph dive i pull the stick fully back, my wings dont break (hey hey, :cheer3nc:) but only because my pilot pulls like 2cm on the stick. wings usually still break long before my pilot notices even the most subtle black out effects.

(so in general we can still turn just as tight....whether with the stick forces enabled or not, the one limiting factor are the paper wings anyway.without those stick forces you dont turn tighter out of magic)

 

if i push the rudder, it reacts accordingly to my inputs and without any delay i can push the full range right or left...

 

weird combination.

 

that brings me to the next problem of these so called "realistic" stick forces...now with them implemented, i can pull on my stick at 700kph completely back, and dont have to fear that i brake my wings...i do that at 400kph, and there it goes. really realistc :)

 

all in all, as it is now, i hope the devs reconsider to implement it at all in its current state into the official version, and once tweaked, make it optional.so people can choose whether to fly with "force input" or "position input".


Edited by 9./JG27 DavidRed
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To expand on why it really is the only route to go: If you run the math you will find that the G force per Newton of stick force tends to remain fairly constant for reversible control systems*. This means that for a constant force used, the deflection will decrease with increasing airspeed.

 

We fly aircraft based on control forces, as we as human beings are notoriously bad at sensing the positions of our limbs. The latter tends to surprise people, but we feel the forces used to counteract gravity and reverse calculate the positions. In a zero G environment, you typically won't know where your hands are unless you can see them.

 

The only way to implement this realistically in a simulator is to translate the constant joystick force used for a given joystick deflection into a constant virtual stick force, and deflect the virtual stick correspondingly - which seems to be what Yo-Yo has implemented.

 

Although I agree with you that a true force-based relation between joystick and simulated control stick is a good model, it is NOT what Yo-Yo implemented:

 

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.

 

After some further elaboration by Yo-Yo in the same thread I understand the model to work as follows:

 

  1. in principle, the controls are still position matched, but:
  2. there is a maximum pilot force defined: when this is reached, the simulated controls position will not move further (the 'cutting' force);
  3. before reaching that, there is a control force zone with 'reduced agility', meaning: a low-pass filter is applied to your input producing lag between your joystick's motion and the simulated control's motion. This was done to simulate the pilot's having trouble to move his stick against a large force rapidly.

 

Point 3 seems to be what DavidRed is objecting to. I just wanted to clarify the new model here: it is NOT a true force-based model, but rather a hybrid model giving position-matched response under 'normal' conditions with the addition of force-based modeling of the pilot's physical limitations.


Edited by PhoenixBvo

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

  • CPU i7 4970k @ 4.7 GHz
  • RAM 16GB G.Skill TridentX 1600
  • ATX ASUS Z97-PRO
  • DSU Samsung 850 PRO 256GB SSD for Win10, Plextor M6e 128GB SSD for DCS exclusively, RAID-1 HDDs
  • GFX Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11GB Xtreme Edition, ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q, 27" with G-Sync, Oculus Rift CV1

  • HID TM HOTAS Warthog + 10 cm extension, MFG Crosswind pedals, TrackIR 5, Obutto oZone

 

My TM Warthog Profile + Chart, F-15C EM Diagram Generator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A force cut off with direct position relations below the threshold would indeed be the worst of both worlds. I hope that's not the case.

 

Is is however exactly what is now in 1.2.15. Also, I don't think you should judge it that quickly and harshly. You seem not to have tried it yet...

 

My impression is that the response agility filter can do with some fine tuning. When you move your stick into it, it immediately acts as a thick soup slowing the stick down. My suggestion would be to make the filter directional: moving against the force is subjected to lag, but reducing your input should get you out of the zone without lag.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

  • CPU i7 4970k @ 4.7 GHz
  • RAM 16GB G.Skill TridentX 1600
  • ATX ASUS Z97-PRO
  • DSU Samsung 850 PRO 256GB SSD for Win10, Plextor M6e 128GB SSD for DCS exclusively, RAID-1 HDDs
  • GFX Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11GB Xtreme Edition, ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q, 27" with G-Sync, Oculus Rift CV1

  • HID TM HOTAS Warthog + 10 cm extension, MFG Crosswind pedals, TrackIR 5, Obutto oZone

 

My TM Warthog Profile + Chart, F-15C EM Diagram Generator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just wanted to clarify the new model here: it is NOT a true force-based model, but rather a hybrid model giving position-matched response under 'normal' conditions with the addition of force-based modeling of the pilot's physical limitations.

 

 

If this is what is implemented then this seems like the most realistic. If its not physically possible to pull back on the stick then it seems unrealistic to be able to do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^you hope right, its not.

 

effte and DavidRed, could it be that you guys have not understood my point 3 concerning the zone of reduced response agility...?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

  • CPU i7 4970k @ 4.7 GHz
  • RAM 16GB G.Skill TridentX 1600
  • ATX ASUS Z97-PRO
  • DSU Samsung 850 PRO 256GB SSD for Win10, Plextor M6e 128GB SSD for DCS exclusively, RAID-1 HDDs
  • GFX Aorus GTX 1080 Ti 11GB Xtreme Edition, ASUS ROG Swift PG279Q, 27" with G-Sync, Oculus Rift CV1

  • HID TM HOTAS Warthog + 10 cm extension, MFG Crosswind pedals, TrackIR 5, Obutto oZone

 

My TM Warthog Profile + Chart, F-15C EM Diagram Generator

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also prefer an option to keep stick position=virtual stick position as well somewhere in the settings. And instead I wish the stickforces could be felt a little bit with FFB. Also visible with a marker showing the forces in the control input graphic. That would fantastic in my opinion and for those that have FFB would make more sense.

So an optional setting is better I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Yo-Yo made right decision with simulate stick force.

 

Before it was totaly unrealistic - 109 could do roll at very high speeds even better then at slow to medium which was totaly absurd and unrealistic. The same with elevator controls.

 

Maby it still need some tuning but definitly step into right direction.

 

Any force stick now cant simulate real forces so dont say such bs...

 

You need just to familiarize with new situation just all.

 

Any other option is just nonsense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...