Implementing Virtual Stick Forces in the K4...

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[Anatoli-Kagari9]

- Intentionally left blank -

Edited August 17, 2015 by jcomm

[[DBS]TH0R]

Control stiffening was just one of the explanations offered. IMHO how much stick travel, or in other words how effective the elevator is - translating into required stick deflection is also a key to understanding what was posted in the thread you mention.

 

Before we discuss stick stiffening, it would be interesting to know how much stick travel was required to enter an accelerated stall at speeds 380-420 km/h before this feature was implemented.

[NineLine]

In the limit there could be entries in the CONTROLs menu allowing for the simmer to set this filer according to pilot physical conditions / capacities... This would cause asymmetries specially against oponents ( human or AI ), but that would actually also be the case IRL...

 

The nature of the online combat pilot, they will only use the best options possible. Now maybe it would be nice to have this setting for AI (in the skill settings) but for the most part, this setting wouldn't be worth much. Are you going to enter a server and set your pilot to the weakest setting? No, probably not.

 

I think there is plenty of 'asymmetries' between pilots when talking player vs player already. AI is a whole other beast.

[Teapot]

Considering that it's a relationship between RW physical input and how that's implemented by the game as a certain amount of stick pressure I find the plane very enjoyable to fly.

I know that while I only need to fly fingertip pressure, that approaching higher speeds (650 - 700) my pilot avatar must be exerting a fair amount of effort to move that stick ... flying the 109 and translating stick forces into the virtual stick force has helped my flying immeasurably all round for all the prop fighters.

 

I love it.

[Solty]

The nature of the online combat pilot, they will only use the best options possible. Now maybe it would be nice to have this setting for AI (in the skill settings) but for the most part, this setting wouldn't be worth much. Are you going to enter a server and set your pilot to the weakest setting? No, probably not.

 

I think there is plenty of 'asymmetries' between pilots when talking player vs player already. AI is a whole other beast.

I agree and think that current way of representing it is correct and well done.( we just need those rudder forces that were promissed ;))

[[DBS]TH0R]

Another vote :thumbup: for the stiffening up the controls.

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Alright guys! ..but not forget that all warbirds, had controls stiffening, at different speeds not only in the Bf-109.

I expect that ED will modeled de P-51 controls stiffening, (Stick forces about 20Lb per G ) and the violent aileron snatch effect, that this plane have when stalling and entering on spin as IRL.. :joystick: I think that current DCS P-51 Flight Model is very optimistic, compared with Bf-109K4.

 

...If you have doubts read pages 6 and 7 of the attached file. :music_whistling:

Flight test comparison_P-47_P-51_Corsair_Hellcat.pdf

Edited May 5, 2015 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[Teapot]

Thanks Otto; made a really interesting read!

Regarding the P51 in the article, I kind of feel that the DCS representation is pretty close to what was described ... but that's the problem we encounter when the representation is *feel* based I guess.

However, I hope that the modules will always be open for re-interpretation until we hit the sweet spot ... whatever that is lol!

[NineLine]

but that's the problem we encounter when the representation is *feel* based I guess.

 

+100

 

There are so many variables involved when we are talking each users individual experience....

[fastfreddie]

Alright guys! ..but not forget that all warbirds, had controls stiffening, at different speeds not only in the Bf-109.

I expect that ED will modeled de P-51 controls stiffening, (Stick forces about 20Lb per G ) and the violent aileron snatch effect, that this plane have when stalling and entering on spin as IRL.. :joystick: I think that current DCS P-51 Flight Model is very optimistic, compared with Bf-109K4.

 

...If you have doubts read pages 6 and 7 of the attached file. :music_whistling:

 

Very interesting read on all the aircraft. From this article it seemed the P-51 would be a very hard aircraft to pull into hard G manuevers but DCS does seem to have the stall modeled pretty close. P-47 sounds like it will be a joy to fly (since we don't have to sit in it) but will have a limited FOV. Hellcat sounded like well ... it would be challenging to keep in a straight line at certain speeds and with all the complaining about the Dora's trim. I don't know how well it would be received among some of the sim pilots here lol.

[[DBS]TH0R]

Thanks for the article Otto. The Mustang will snap on you if not careful, in any sim I've flown it thus far. As for stick forces, the pitch stiffness was described as similar to that of a P-51 by Dave Southwood:

The Bf109G is heavy to manoeuvre in pitch, being similar to a Mustang. At 520kph it is possible to pull 4g with one hand, but I find it more comfortable to use both hands on the stick for looping manoeuvres, normally entered at 420kph and 3g.

 

 

What is interesting about this article Otto posted are the TO figures in Table I. Lightest of them all, it takes P-51 to TO about the same distance as the P-47 to lift off while the latter being 2500 lb heavier and the 51 takes off at a higher speed. Unlike what the manual says P-51 is capable off (whether that being true or not is a matter of another discussion).

 

On the following page it says the Mustang suffered from rough running at 4000 ft and was thus flown at METO (Maximum Except Takeoff Power) power which smoothed out engine operation. So at least the climb chart together with the TO one are not representative.

 

 

Speaking of control stiffening, seeing how pilots often mention using both hands on the stick for heavy maneuvering at high speeds - it would be cool if something like using one or two hands on the stick could be modeled. Having to use both hands should disable you from using any other control. Perhaps having a key binding for a two hand pull that disables all other controls, or some other way might be useful. Knowing whether ED models single hand on the joystick at all times would also help in understanding how stick forces are modeled.

Edited May 5, 2015 by T}{OR

[Solty]

Alright guys! ..but not forget that all warbirds, had controls stiffening, at different speeds not only in the Bf-109.

I expect that ED will modeled de P-51 controls stiffening, (Stick forces about 20Lb per G ) and the violent aileron snatch effect, that this plane have when stalling and entering on spin as IRL.. :joystick: I think that current DCS P-51 Flight Model is very optimistic, compared with Bf-109K4.

 

...If you have doubts read pages 6 and 7 of the attached file. :music_whistling:

If I was to say something about all those planes, it is that they all feel too easy to fly. By that I mean, properly stalling them and entering spin is realy hard in DCS.

 

All of them 109, 190, 51. I had hard times to get them to spin with full power.

 

And I only managed to get the P-51 to spin at full power. Any other airplane is just going nose down and recovers by itself.

 

P-51 in most combat conditions(full power) cannot enter spin, the same for 109 and 190. All those planes just "drop a wing" and only presistant pull (pressure) on the elevator can keep them in a spin-like condition. The moment player leaves the stick to itself, the plane recovers.

 

The only reliable state at which the spin is possible to achieve is with feuselage tank full, then it spins... but recovery is completely normal.

 

Again, its not only P-51. With Fw190 I was unable to enter spin via pulling on the elevator, the airplane drops the nose to the point it is impossible to pull it up, and starts droping wings all around.

 

Bf109K4, snaps on each wing. Again, cannot go reliably into a spin.

 

NOTE: P-51 and Bf109 are able to spin, but it requires a lot of work from the side of the pilot to get them into a proper spin with FULL POWER. I have failed to do so in the Fw190

 

NOTE2: it is possible (at least for the P-51) that spins are "easy" to reproduce with 0%throttle. I have not tried 109 and 190 at this condition.

 

-----

Coming back to stick forces.

 

I have spoken with YoYo about it, and I think it was one of my first posts with him he explained why the mustang has feels like that in DCS.

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1970423&postcount=380

 

So acording to his srouces, this is how it should be. I was rather suprised myself.

 

EDIT: The reason for such high stick forces can be changed CoG of the P-51

"Major modifications include the removal of a 65 gallon fuel tank located

behind the cockpit and installation of a passenger jumpseat."

 

 

All those planes were tested in 1990s so that means their condition and power setting can be questioned. Its like trying to race with 70 years old cars... nobody pushed them too hard.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Solty

[GrapeJam]

The aircraft is shown in Figure 4. Serial

number 45-11586. Powered by

Rolls Royce V-1650-9 Merlin engine

with Hamilton Standard Hydromatic

four-bladed, constant speed propeller.

Major modifications include the removal

of a 65 gallon fuel tank located

behind the cockpit and installation of a

passenger jumpseat

The condition of this Mustang is no indication of a realy WW2 period P51D, the test itself was done in 1990 so the conditions of all aircrafts in the test were questionable.

 

Please don't ever use this test as a performance indication of the Mustang again.

Edited May 5, 2015 by GrapeJam

[[DBS]TH0R]

The condition of this Mustang is no indication of a realy WW2 period P51D, the test itself was done in 1990 so the conditions of all aircrafts in the test were questionable.

 

And it says the P-51 engine was running rough under climb and maneuvering tests. Still, after reading it I now wish to test if there is actually any difference between in-game P-51D and TF-51D related to Yo-Yo's comments Solty linked...

 

 

EDIT: Upon re-reading I see that P-47 had its turbocharger removed, and exhaust lines re-routed. The only two planes in that test that somewhat resemble their war time configuration are Hellcat and Corsair. Without ordinance, that is.

Edited May 5, 2015 by T}{OR

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Alright guys! ..but not forget that all warbirds, had controls stiffening, at different speeds not only in the Bf-109.

I expect that ED will modeled de P-51 controls stiffening, (Stick forces about 20Lb per G ) and the violent aileron snatch effect, that this plane have when stalling and entering on spin as IRL.. :joystick: I think that current DCS P-51 Flight Model is very optimistic, compared with Bf-109K4.

 

...If you have doubts read pages 6 and 7 of the attached file. :music_whistling:

Keep in mind Otto never flies the P-51D, so his "experience" is only being shot down by them, hence for him P-51 "is an easy aircraft", "model is very optimistic/overmodelled", and so. We all here already know 109K4 is way better than P-51, even if still it has to be polished.

 

S!

Edited May 5, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[NineLine]

Keep in mind Otto never flies the P-51D, so his "experience" is only being shot down by them, hence for him P-51 "is an easy aircraft", "model is very optimistic/overmodelled", and so. We all here already know 109K4 is way better than P-51, even if still it has to be polished.

 

S!

 

I think you said you and him are buddies, that said, we need to not make it personal, even if you are just kidding. Lets try and use facts and data to discuss, not picking on peoples abilities, or perceived lack there of ;)

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Sorry mate, you're right, written jokes may sound harsh to people not knowing that we know each other. Sometimes I can't stop myself, Otto makes it so easy to me :) .

 

S!

[NineLine]

Sorry mate, you're right, written jokes may sound harsh to people not knowing that we know each other. Sometimes I can't stop myself, Otto makes it so easy to me :) .

 

S!

 

Thanks for understanding.

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

Keep in mind Otto never flies the P-51D, so his "experience" is only being shot down by them, hence for him P-51 "is an easy aircraft", "model is very optimistic/overmodelled", and so. We all here already know 109K4 is way better than P-51, even if still it has to be polished.

 

S!

 

Yes, it's true, I've only fought against the P-51D, .. but have flown the TF-51 several hours in DCS, testing, and mock dogfights.

As I said in the previous post the P-51D must maneuvering worse than Bf-109 at low speed. (As American and German "grandpa tales" says):music_whistling:

Due to it was very fast airplane not suitable for tight dogfight. The German engineer Edgar Schmued who designed the P-51 planning it as a pure BnZ fighter.

And I'm sure the TF-51D is optimistic and behavior is UNDERmodelled,

 

As Skip Holm test pilot says ..

Manowar ..is this a Grandpa tale too? :D

 

but my friend Manowar is a E.D. fanboy, and he says "all is perfect" .. from the beta version was released, and nothing needs improvement.

And reading the Bugs report thread, everybody can see that Manowar thinks is not true.

Edited May 5, 2015 by III/JG52_Otto_+

[IIIJG52_Otto_]

 

P-51 in most combat conditions(full power) cannot enter spin, the same for 109 and 190. All those planes just "drop a wing" and only presistant pull (pressure) on the elevator can keep them in a spin-like condition. The moment player leaves the stick to itself, the plane recovers.

 

The only reliable state at which the spin is possible to achieve is with feuselage tank full, then it spins... but recovery is completely normal.

I think that is not the real behaviour of P-51 in power stall

Read "power spin"in this page of the original "P-51D Pilot trining Manual"

http://issuu.com/tiamat2013/docs/p-51_poh/79?e=0:book:

 

 

-

EDIT: The reason for such high stick forces can be changed CoG of the P-51

"Major modifications include the removal of a 65 gallon fuel tank located

behind the cockpit and installation of a passenger jumpseat."

 

That is the same configuration of TF-51 in DCS. :music_whistling:

[Ala13_ManOWar]

Me a fanboy? haha, I see clearly proper bugs, what you won't ever see is me looking for bugs where they don't exist. If that's being a fanboy I am.

 

109 should turn tighter than P-51 at low speed, fine, she actually does. If you cannot outmanoeuvre a P-51 with your 109 at low speed that's YOUR problem. Last time I checked I did shot down your teammate Supongo quite easily testing that "mistake", I think you were there. He actually tried to trick me, being silence until he fired at me from 6 o'clock. I outturned and shoot him down easily, from 6 o'clock. If that's a bad turning performance...

 

So you can't call it bug because YOU can't do it, aircraft performs quite fine IMHO. Even needing polishing in some aspects that's not a specially bad one for me, that's all my point.

 

S!

Edited May 6, 2015 by Ala13_ManOWar

[Teapot]

Guys, this isn't a pissing contest. It's been said over and again that these observations need to be supported by hard evidence ... not anecdotal evidence. At least that's the DCS that I want to fly.

I think anecdotes are fine in context. They're usually interesting and can spur further investigation, however .. we really need to supply the evidence or just leave the anecdote as that .. an anecdote.

IMO when the argument is supported/bolstered via using our *own* dogfights in DCS as evidence .. it's just a bit silly and unreasonable ... and dare I say, off topic? :music_whistling:

 

The EDIT: We're ALL fan's of DCS props aren't we? Otherwise we wouldn't be so passionate about DCS ;)

Edited May 6, 2015 by Teapot

[Solty]

1.I think that is not the real behaviour of P-51 in power stall

Read "power spin"in this page of the original "P-51D Pilot trining Manual"

http://issuu.com/tiamat2013/docs/p-51_poh/79?e=0:book:

 

 

 

2. That is the same configuration of TF-51 in DCS. :music_whistling:

 

1. Ummm... so you completely ignore the fact that Fw190 and Bf109 in DCS behave in the same way?:huh:

 

That is why I am saying that:doh:. I've already read it. And not only is it not normal for P-51, but this is not normal for any of these planes. If you think that Fw190 or Bf 109 should not go into spins, read more please:book:.

 

All planes can enter a spin if not handled properly. There is no such thing as spin-free plane. I know that those civilian planes can get away with it, because their recovery is so easy... but we are talking 109, 190 and 51 here.

-------

2.TF-51 flies like the P-51 just has lower stalling speed and better turn rate due to lower weight.

 

I haven't seen any difference within the FM. I think it uses the same FM as P-51D just doesn't have the weight of the P-51D(lack of guns, radar, fuel tank etc.)

[GrapeJam]

BTW, the TF51D weights 3790kg,full load. The P51D weights 4566kg, full load.