stick forces-please make them optional

[Yo-Yo]

Or perhaps there could be some indicators added to the controls indicator. (preferably directly by ED?)

 

The best indicator is the plane itself: if it does not want to do something you are expecting from it at the moment - you have compressed controls. :)

[NineLine]

The best indicator is the plane itself: if it does not want to do something you are expecting from it at the moment - you have compressed controls. :)

 

I sorta get what he means, right now you can display the indicator for your controls, it would be kind of cool to have an overlay on that showing the true stick position in relation to your flight stick position. I dont think its critical to the sim, but would be an interesting option if it could be done easily.

[Flagrum]

I sorta get what he means, right now you can display the indicator for your controls, it would be kind of cool to have an overlay on that showing the true stick position in relation to your flight stick position. I dont think its critical to the sim, but would be an interesting option if it could be done easily.

Yes, exactly. Some visual representation of the forces that prevent us from deflecting the (virtual) stick too much. Something that allows us to "sense" (well, see) how these dynamic forces change over time when maneuvering so one can better relate the flight situation with the physical stick position and the resulting virtual stick position better - as a learning tool to make up a bit for the missing physical sensation of the forces.

[Crumpp]

 

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.

 

Excellent! Looks like stability and control engineering is making its way into the World War II combat flight simulation arena!

 

Welcome..... :thumbup:

[WildBillKelsoe]

I have a problem with P-51. I know not relevant to this subforum. I set user curves from 0 +5 +10 +15 +20 +25 +30 +35 +40 then 60 then 100. I pull the real stick to my gut and its fully back.

 

Now I set user curve from 0 to 40 to the last slider, and when I pull the real stick to my gut, the stick is fully deflected back. What is wrong? Shouldn't the upper limit be the limit inside the virtual cockpit?

[Kwiatek]

Yes, but only if the certain aircraft has these restrictions.

 

Nice to hear. So now only K-4 got stick forces implemented?

 

It was very old discussion... P-51 has very low stick forces and the most dangerous was an effect of gradient reversal at aft CG balance. This effect together with outstanding maximum lift at high Mach numbers made strtuctural failure very possible and required careful pulling at high speed. Dora was reported relatively easy to handle at high IAS.

 

As i remember Fw 190 D-9 elevator became also quite heavy above 375 mph?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

[Crumpp]

As i remember Fw 190 D-9 elevator became also quite heavy above 375 mph?

 

Do not worry. Stability and Control engineering is not based on feelings and innuendo.

 

It is math and science. Given the correct engineering information about the design those characteristics will come forth.

[hegykc]

Kit Carson Best of breed comments on the 109

*a brief text I have saved, I don't have the book or know the author

 

"A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

 

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph.

If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back,

due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

 

Ailerons

 

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph and 300 mph they became "unpleasant".

Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph;

that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

 

(1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on

the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.

 

(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.

 

(3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, (1/5 of 4 inches is exactly 2cm) it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.

 

Elevator

 

This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneuverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

 

Rudder

 

At low speeds the rudder was light but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the suggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

 

Control Harmony

 

At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate.

 

Aerobatics

 

Not easy to do. Loops had to be started from about 280 mph when the elevator forces were getting unduly heavy; there was also a tendency for the wing slats to bang open the top of the loop, resulting in aileron snatch and loss of direction.

 

Below 250 mph the airplane would roll quickly but there was a strong tendency for the nose to fall through the horizon in the last half of the roll and the stick had to be moved well back to keep the nose up.

 

Upward rolls were difficult, again because of elevator heaviness at the required starting speed. Due to this, only a moderate pull out from a dive to build up speed was possible and considerable speed was lost before the upward roll could be started.

 

The very bad maneuverability at high speed of the Me-109 quickly became known to the RAF pilots in 1940. On many occasions 109 pilots were led to self destruction when on the tail of a Hurricane or Spitfire at moderate or low altitudes. The RAF pilot would do a snappy half roll and "split ess" pull out, from say 3,000 feet. In the heat and confusion of the moment the 109 pilot would follow, only to discover that he didn't have enough altitude to recover due to his heavy elevator forces and go straight into the ground or the Channel without a shot being fired."

[Yo-Yo]

Nice to hear. So now only K-4 got stick forces implemented?

 

 

 

As i remember Fw 190 D-9 elevator became also quite heavy above 375 mph?

 

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/wright-field-fw190d-9.pdf

 

Quite heavy - not "unbearable" or "frozen". In comparison to 109 that was described in these terms.

 

Regarding the limits - all planes have it (or will have) for pedals and for ailerons. And now only 109 has it in pitch.

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

Quite heavy - not "unbearable" or "frozen". In comparison to 109 that was described in these terms.

 

Regarding the limits - all planes have it (or will have) for pedals and for ailerons. And now only 109 has it in pitch.

 

Dimitry RULEZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!!

 

Sorry, couldn't resist!!!

 

Thx Yo-Yo - This is GREAT NEWS!!!

[Kwiatek]

Quite heavy - not "unbearable" or "frozen". In comparison to 109 that was described in these terms.

 

 

Yes exacly quite heavy dont mean frozen :)

 

I ask casue actually in D-9 at high speed there is no feel any heaviness.

 

Other hand in other game Fw 190 got near frozen elevator at high speeds which seriously restricted manouverablity of these plane.

Edited February 26, 2015 by Kwiatek

[DB 605]

Kit Carson Best of breed

 

Sorry but this Kit Carson article is nothing else than bad joke. IIRC he did not even flown 109 by himself.

[IvanK]

Bravo!! Love the new stick routine. I am one of those that has always tweaked the axis curves. Not so with the OB 109 in Pitch and Roll. Love the the new feel.

[Barfly]

Same here.... it is excellent! Obviously need a little tweaking, but much better overall. Thanks for keeping at this Mr Yo-Yo :)

[Kurfürst]

Must try out tonight! :)

[Bucic]

This is an another thread on the subject and I'm speaking in general here. Some people really need to educate themselves. I mean people claiming that it is possible to make a high-fidelity contemporary flight model without modeling flight control systems limitations AND the limitations of human kinematics; as well as people who claim you can't model such limitations without special hardware (sic!). Man, this is not even ignorance with aerodynamics etc. It's ignorance on the level of 'haven't even learned from games played in the past'.

 

As for the 'feature' being optional, it's as valid for being optional as two separate flight models. Unless for SP if you'd like the 109 to fly like a RC plane. (unless you do have full-scale, high-load set of flight controls at your disposal).

 

So please stop puting it like it is some kind of 'Yo-Yo's personal choice'.

 

A question from me to Yo-Yo:

Would it be technically viable to implement 'flight controls limitations OFF' for people who do own WW2 flight control replicas?

 

PS. There's always X-Plane. I don't think the poor blokes have discovered flight control systems limitations modeling to this day.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Bucic

[golani79]

After flying and dogfhighting (mostly AI) for a while now I must say I don´t feel that much of a difference.

The limitation starts right about where I wouldn´t pull / push the stick any further because it would cause problems.

 

Overall I think it´s a bit easier now to fly because there is less room for errors.

If you pulled too far before you risked ripping your wings off, getting into a stall etc. .. it´s now pretty hard to get into such undesired situations though it´s still possible.

 

It definitely felt weird in the beginning - but that I think was due to the translation from no stick forces at all to stick forces.

It might need a little bit of tweaking maybe but overall I think it´s working quite good.

[Bucic]

Excellent! Looks like stability and control engineering is making its way into the World War II combat flight simulation arena!

 

Welcome..... :thumbup:

It's not a novum. BoB 2 WoV had it (down to inertia of control column + rods as well as control cable stretch) and I bet Il-2 CoD and RoF had it implemented as well.

[NineLine]

It's not a novum. BoB 2 WoV had it (down to inertia of control column + rods as well as control cable stretch) and I bet Il-2 CoD and RoF had it implemented as well.

 

*cough*...

 

I'd argue that it wasnt done like this.. but anyways, lets keep the discussion on DCS.

[Schnarre Aggro]

Allright ... I tried it :music_whistling:

 

I keep in mind that you are all "right" in your "own small world" ....

 

I discussed that topic very long with david...

Partly im with david and

Partly im with yoyo

 

I really like the way of the implementation of the stick forces like yoyo did it. IMHO its the only way to "simulate" it correctly without a "hilariouspower"Forcefeedbackjoystick.

Great job and well done Yoyo :thumbup:

 

Im can totally understand davids thought on that (we discussed it in our mothertounge "german" where we both are able to express ourselves to a very clear and understandable point).

He pointed out that it was way more difficult to master the plane without the stickforces inplemented.

One was easily able to break the plane if pulled to much.... took me maybe 100h to master it up to a satisfying level.

This "familiarization" results in a flightpath wich is very similar to what it is now in 1.2.15!

The plane as it is now is simply said "foolproof" .... you cant break it in a dive like you could before.

Good for all the 98% of the Pilots who have less hours than david and me .

look ... we "feel" patronised of the stickforces, cause they took us the power of breaking the plane when we want!:joystick:

 

Well ... now i head on for some further conlclusion on which i need the information of YOYO

on how the stickforce is Implemented.

which means:

 

1. "there is a maximum force one can pull"

 

2."at certain speeds this mf results in a different Pitch/Roll/Yaw output

 

 

 

Now i want you all to think logically ... wouldnt it be Realistic to implement a slider which allows to determin the "Actual strength of the Pilot".

 

 

 

For example (Just say for easy calculating) a pilot can pull 100kg Pitch and push 50kg roll.

 

This is the mf which was taken calculate the P/R/Y output

With a slider one could be able multiply the "strength of the Pilot" with 1.5.

wich again means that one is able to pull up to 150kg pitch and push 75kg roll

wich would alter the P/R/Y output

Result is that a "Strong Pilot" could break his plane again in a fast dive, or is able to do at least a very slow rate of roll at 700kph.

 

Guys ... you have to admit ... there are differences in the strenght of people.

just imagine ... probably the pilots who were able to pull out a me109 didnt survived cause they were too strong and therefor broke the plane :megalol:

 

 

one last note .... if we have a slider for "Takeoffassistance":megalol::megalol: i think a slider for adjusting the "pilot Strength" isnt that unrealistic :music_whistling:

[Bucic]

As it is still beta :) and we have not find yet exact pedal forces for 109. Ok, if we do not find for the next patch we can use something like P-51 limitations.

Could you briefly explain why you've decided not to go with the analytical method for calculating forces on flight controls from control surface hinge momentum?

[NineLine]

;2330544']

 

Now i want you all to think logically ... wouldnt it be Realistic to implement a slider which allows to determin the "Actual strength of the Pilot".

 

SO most people would pick the optimum setting and use that, not sure anyone would pick a very weak pilot... so I dont think any development time should/would be wasted for that sort of setting... just my humble opinion though...

[Schnarre Aggro]

SO most people would pick the optimum setting and use that, not sure anyone would pick a very weak pilot... so I dont think any development time should/would be wasted for that sort of setting... just my humble opinion though...

 

well ... the optimum setting for a average dcs bf109 pilot ist probably the "1.2.15" setting ..... most noobies brake theire plane cause they dont know it to its full capability ....

i would like to dogfight you in the 109 ... i bet you brake it 5 times while trying to stay on my 6 ;)

... then you would go into settings and adjust for a weaker pilot....

 

you know... i spend waaayyyyy more time in cockpit than in the forum ;)

 

feel yourself challenged ;)

... i just roughly calculated that i have approximately a quarter of your Postamount in flighthours on various dcs modules ^^ .... i saw a lot .... like you did on the forum ;)

Edited February 27, 2015 by Schnarre [Aggro]
forgot to insert the correct version

[NineLine]

;2330552']well ... the optimum setting for a average dcs bf109 pilot ist probably the "1.2.15" setting ..... most noobies brake theire plane cause they dont know it to its full capability ....

i would like to dogfight you in the 109 ... i bet you brake it 5 times while trying to stay on my 6 ;)

... then you would go into settings and adjust for a weaker pilot....

 

you know... i spend waaayyyyy more time in cockpit than in the forum ;)

 

feel yourself challenged ;)

... i just roughly calculated that i have approximately a quarter of your Postamount in flighthours on various dcs modules ^^ .... i saw a lot .... like you did on the forum ;)

 

Well you just proved why the setting doesnt make a lot of sense... if people were having trouble breaking wings they could just go change a setting to get away with more...

 

As for your challenge... you really dont know what you are talking about, and it really has nothing to do with the topic. So no, I dont feel challenged in the least...

[Schnarre Aggro]

sry sith ... you didnt get my point .

 

current version:

you pull too much - plane brakes

you pull as much that the plane does NOT break - results in a flightpath like in 1.2.15

 

version 1.2.15:

you pull too much - flightpath like in 1.2.15

you pull as much that the plane does NOT break - flightpath like in 1.2.15

 

get it now ?

 

ah ... forgot ... i consider it kinda rude to say "..you really dont know what you are talking about..." i hope i wasnt that rude toyou if so - sry for beeing rude

Edited February 27, 2015 by Schnarre [Aggro]
damnit... i allways forget sth ^^