So, tell me please....

[bongodriver]

We already have trimmers axes for P-51, and they are limited in rotation speed. I use the axes. But the main problem is that the most of game controllers have simple 90-270 degree pots that can not give required accuracy. If you control the trimmer with on-off control or even on-off with controlled speed you can achieve this accuracy.

I mean that Mustang-like control gives preferences for those who can use multy-revolution pots.

 

But in the 109 if it was allowed to use our 90-270 pots it would actually be closer to real life because much more care would need to be taken to get the trim right, a small movement on our pots means a big one in game and that would mean its a bit more fiddly and that could suitably occupy at least one of our hands enough to satisfy those that think it's a cheat.

[Solty]

That is not how you trim aircraft, you seem to have even understood that yourself, if you start manoeuvring the aircraft around while trimming then what is the point of trimming?

 

a 109 pilot could interrupt his trimming at any time he wished if he felt the need to reach for another cockpit function, so it would just take a little longer, so why not make the trim move slightly slower than in real life?

seriously, this notion that 109's will gain significant advantage by this is just daft.

There is a point in triming the plane like that. You start trimming it up and you get it easier to turn at high speed and maneuver at the same time. So thats "cheat" as the 109 stiffness is reduced to not even beeing a factor as you can trim and fly with full focus on maneuvering and disregard the trimming wheel on its own as it is "automatically" turning itself. Get it?

[bongodriver]

There is a point in triming the plane like that. You start trimming it up and you get it easier to turn at high speed and maneuver at the same time. So thats "cheat" as the 109 stiffness is reduced to not even beeing a factor as you can trim and fly with full focus on maneuvering and disregard the trimming wheel on its own as it is "automatically" turning itself. Get it?

 

There's nothing to 'get' in that statement, it makes no sense to me, you think dogfighting is just turning round and round in level turns?

I just explained in an earlier post how allowing what I ask is not going to make life easy for it.....get it?

[ZaltysZ]

So thats "cheat" as the 109 stiffness is reduced to not even beeing a factor as you can trim and fly with full focus on maneuvering and disregard the trimming wheel on its own as it is "automatically" turning itself. Get it?

 

How it is different in this regard right now? Most HOTAS have multiple HATS on throttle, so it is even possible not only trim while actively maneuvering, but even while operating the throttle. There is no "security" in this weird implementation too.

[Siegfried]

With actual system I can turn a rotary at extreme and the control moves slowly to extreme movement while I quit the hand for make another control. Now the trim or flaps are like automatic system. The problem is when you want let the flaps in a position you need find the central position of the rotary.

 

Knowing both systems can be exploited, I prefer the P51's one.

[klem]

We already have trimmers axes for P-51, and they are limited in rotation speed. I use the axes. But the main problem is that the most of game controllers have simple 90-270 degree pots that can not give required accuracy. If you control the trimmer with on-off control or even on-off with controlled speed you can achieve this accuracy.

I mean that Mustang-like control gives preferences for those who can use multy-revolution pots.

 

Yo-Yo could you explain something please? Is my understanding correct that the elevator trim, as modelled, cannot move the elevator beyond the deflection range that the stick can? As I tried to say here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2516177&postcount=150

 

If that is correct I do not see where any exploitation in combat can be obtained using quick-fire trim change because even with a single turn pot it cannot change the elevator deflection faster than a stick can by just pulling it back.

 

If the aim is simply to ensure that only a 'realistic' trimming action can be achieved in normal flight then that's a reasonable point but I do not see how that can be declared to be combat 'exploitation'. It's just a bit of a convenient cheat, like it is in the P-51D which has about 500 degree RL rotation on a typical HOTAS 300 degree pot which is manageable. Yes a single turn pot would be almost impossible to use on the 109 due to sensitivity (unless scaled right back) but you have provided keys as an alternative for those that can't use it. Why stop those that can?

 

Like some others I have multi-turn trimmers for a better experience and I would really like to be able to use a rotary. Also, with the likely trim range that would be used for takeoff and landing even a single turn pot could be scaled back for better control over a smaller range. It would be the users choice.

[Sporg]

Yo-Yo could you explain something please? Is my understanding correct that the elevator trim, as modelled, cannot move the elevator beyond the deflection range that the stick can? As I tried to say here:

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2516177&postcount=150

 

 

No, you are not only moving a trim tab. On the 109 you are moving the whole horizontal stabilizer, as seen here:

 

 

And here:

 

[Solty]

There's nothing to 'get' in that statement, it makes no sense to me, you think dogfighting is just turning round and round in level turns?

I just explained in an earlier post how allowing what I ask is not going to make life easy for it.....get it?

Where did you get the idea that I don't know how aircombat works? For level turning that would be of very little use btw. Sustained turns bleed E and that makes turning for the 109 easier. But, It is to pull through tough maneuvers, while keeping the focus on the target.

 

For example. If a P-51 does a Spilt-S at 500kph and 109 follows, the 109 is not going to be able to make it at low alt, or at least is going to make the pull very slowly. You just push your trim max at the begining of the maneuver and you can follow the P-51 through it, then you just pull the wheel back to the max nose down possition to reduce pitching moment and voila. Done. Or even to just pull deflection at high speed, without too much of a hastle.

 

And no I don't see how that wouldn't be an exploit. When I had the 109 the wheel moved similar to the P-51's cannopy handle, and I felt thats ok.

 

PS. I understand that you wouldn't use it like that, but I am aware of exploiters. If the system would be robust enough for you to turn in 1:1 with the game, that would be awesome and I would have no problem and say. 'YAY change that'. But as it stands now most people don't want to fly the plane, just to fly the winining plane.

 

How it is different in this regard right now? Most HOTAS have multiple HATS on throttle, so it is even possible not only trim while actively maneuvering, but even while operating the throttle. There is no "security" in this weird implementation too.

 

Well, for one you need to constantly hold the button, with the other you just push a thing and it becomes "automatic"... for me that a tremendous change. One of the reasons that I use Free Track is that I don't have to use HAT. I can't maneuver when I use it. My brain can't filter that. One hand is suppose to do the maneuvering and changing views all the time, thats too much. Same here with the trim or flaps. Or am I missing something?

Edited October 14, 2015 by Solty

[bongodriver]

 

Well, for one you need to constantly hold the button, with the other you just push a thing and it becomes "automatic"... for me that a tremendous change. One of the reasons that I use Free Track is that I don't have to use HAT. I can't maneuver when I use it. My brain can't filter that. One hand is suppose to do the maneuvering and changing views all the time, thats too much. Same here with the trim or flaps. Or am I missing something?

 

You are missing that on a HOTAS system the flap and trim can be mapped to buttons on the throttle anyway, so you can still trim/deploy flap and use the throttle at the same time, I know I can hold 2 buttons on my HOTAS throttle simultaneously and still use the throttle,

This perception of 'automatic' you have is redundant, we can achieve the same thing just by holding a button.

[klem]

No, you are not only moving a trim tab. On the 109 you are moving the whole horizontal stabilizer, as seen here:

 

 

And here:

 

 

Thank you Sporg.

 

I didn't know that. It changes the argument completely. I'd still like to use my rotary and wish they would find a way to make that possible.

[golani79]

So thats "cheat" as the 109 stiffness is reduced to not even beeing a factor as you can trim and fly with full focus on maneuvering and disregard the trimming wheel on its own as it is "automatically" turning itself. Get it?

 

lol .. I really don´t see the difference - I already can trim and fly and use my throttle - all at the same time.

All people are asking for is a better implementation for an axis.

 

e.g. I´ve mapped the stabilizer to my castle switch because the current axis implemantation is - at least for me - just useless.

So I go into a dive and when pulling out or a bit before I simultanously start trimming with the castle switch while I´m pulling the stick back.

During all this time I can operate my throttle as needed while I don´t have to get my hand off the trim"wheel"

[Solty]

lol .. I really don´t see the difference - I already can trim and fly and use my throttle - all at the same time.

All people are asking for is a better implementation for an axis.

 

e.g. I´ve mapped the stabilizer to my castle switch because the current axis implemantation is - at least for me - just useless.

So I go into a dive and when pulling out or a bit before I simultanously start trimming with the castle switch while I´m pulling the stick back.

During all this time I can operate my throttle as needed while I don´t have to get my hand off the trim"wheel"

If thats what you feel... well fine. To me thats an exploit and on the border of cheat (what you are doing as well). I always put my trim on my keyboard to simulate reaching for it even though I could have it on my stick. :mad:

 

This convinces me that even more rigid system should be used. Maybe the pilot while using the wheel should have less strenght as if his arm was preoccupied, and as long as it is turning the throttle should be unusable?! In that case you can have your trim wheel axis, just make sure for it to work in a realistic way. For all planes that is.

 

Why would you buy a WW2 plane to have automated trim is beyond me.

 

But again, thats just me.

Edited October 14, 2015 by Solty

[Sporg]

I must admit, I think that for axis trim and flaps could be implemented like on the P-51.

 

As for "cheating" I have for both aircraft placed the trim on my CMS button, always available under my thumb.

 

If we would seriously avoid the "cheating" part, throttle movements could be blocked as long as the trim or flaps wheels/levers are used, to simulate that the hand is being engaged elsewhere. :)

 

Fun, but I think we would then be moving into a quite complicated path. ;)

[golani79]

If thats what you feel... well fine.

 

Thats not how I feel, thats the way it´s implemented at the moment.

And why should I put myself to a disadvantage if surely everyone else - well, obviously not all - are using it the same or a similar way.

 

Binding the trimwheel to keyboard buttons is probably not the best idea as I´m sure you just can´t hit them 100% accurate in the heat of the battle and you´d need to take a glance at the keys.

While in the real plane you´d just know where your trimwheel is and just reach back and operate it - the same as it is with HOTAS controls.

 

Well, and the thing which you are criticising .. you know - to turn an axis and wait for the trim to get there - it´s already possible in the P-51

 

And even if I´d like to bind the trim to an extra set of trimwheels in the 109 I couldn´t do it in any useful way.

[Solty]

Thats not how I feel, thats the way it´s implemented at the moment.

And why should I put myself to a disadvantage if surely everyone else - well, obviously not all - are using it the same or a similar way.

 

Binding the trimwheel to keyboard buttons is probably not the best idea as I´m sure you just can´t hit them 100% accurate in the heat of the battle and you´d need to take a glance at the keys.

While in the real plane you´d just know where your trimwheel is and just reach back and operate it - the same as it is with HOTAS controls.

 

Well, and the thing which you are criticising .. you know - to turn an axis and wait for the trim to get there - it´s already possible in the P-51

 

And even if I´d like to bind the trim to an extra set of trimwheels in the 109 I couldn´t do it in any useful way.

Yeah I get it and understand it. It is just that some gamey thing stands in the way of full realism and there isn't a quick and easy solution to it.

[golani79]

It is just that some gamey thing stands in the way of full realism and there isn't a quick and easy solution to it.

 

I agree - but in my opinion to a certain degree there are a few corners which needs to be cut as long as the person flying doesn´t have a 1:1 replication of the actual cockpit.

 

Even in such high fidelity simulations like DCS.

[bongodriver]

The quick and easy solution is to give us 109 trim and flap axis control just like the P-51, we will then find out just how much of an exploit it really is, personally I think it's just paranoia, are people exploiting it in the P-51? if so shouldn't there be a call to restrict the P-51 in the same way?

[klem]

The quick and easy solution is to give us 109 trim and flap axis control just like the P-51, we will then find out just how much of an exploit it really is, personally I think it's just paranoia, are people exploiting it in the P-51? if so shouldn't there be a call to restrict the P-51 in the same way?

 

Old School: "Never bring a problem to the table without offering a solution"

 

The most effective solution (Yo-Yo might disagree due to coding) would be to implement a delay based on input demand. For example, the actual rotations animated are 4 turns = 1440 degrees. This also corresponds to the flap cycle shown here:

and the flaps and trim were intended to be used together.

In that demonstration it takes about 20 seconds to do the 22 movements of about 60/70 degrees at a gentle pace.

 

In this video Klaus (?) lowers the flaps in flight over 18 movements in about 15 seconds:

That's about 80 degrees per hand movement and about 96 degrees per second.

 

Lets say we're as quick as Klaus: 96 degrees per second, 18 hand operations in 15 seconds.

 

The output range of a HOTAS or other, even muti-turn, trimmer pot is typically 0 to 65535. So every change of input of 65535/15 seconds = 4369 deg/sec.. Lets say a change of input of 4000 should incur a delay of 1 second and proportionally for any other change of input values. It's just a slope.

 

Can't that be done? Once the code is established it can be applied to any trim with adjusted parameters to suit wheel size, RL rotations etc.

[bongodriver]

Old School: "Never bring a problem to the table without offering a solution"

 

I haven't brought a problem to the table, the only perceived problem in this is some sort of advantage/exploit of 'automatic' trim/flaps, but the fact is the current implementation of trim and flaps used on a rotary axis does nothing to eliminate this, you can still turn your pot and leave it to operate the flaps/trim, it does however just make life confusing for people expecting true to life behaviour from a rotating control on their physical hardware.

I'm not asking for a means to cheat, I'm just asking for the current means to 'cheat' make some physical sense.

 

As far as your timings of the flap control go, I have already checked in game and it seems to be true to life, I averaged 15 seconds to deploy flap and a couple of seconds longer to retract (retracting is physically more restrictive as demonstrated in the video)

[Crumpp]

Listen, to me it is made like that because they want to show that the 109's pilot had to leave the stick for a good while to get that thing cranking and and it takes time to set it into the right possiton. IRL when you want to trim/drop flaps you need one of your hands for a while moving the wheel. Unlike in the P-51 which seems to be, way easier and a few of motions is needed. Maybe thats just my perception.

 

 

Just what I feel.

 

Unless the trim is electric and on the control stick/yoke....

 

All pilots have to use one hand to trim and other to hold the controls. :smilewink:

[klem]

I haven't brought a problem to the table, the only perceived problem in this is some sort of advantage/exploit of 'automatic' trim/flaps, but the fact is the current implementation of trim and flaps used on a rotary axis does nothing to eliminate this, you can still turn your pot and leave it to operate the flaps/trim, it does however just make life confusing for people expecting true to life behaviour from a rotating control on their physical hardware.

I'm not asking for a means to cheat, I'm just asking for the current means to 'cheat' make some physical sense.

 

As far as your timings of the flap control go, I have already checked in game and it seems to be true to life, I averaged 15 seconds to deploy flap and a couple of seconds longer to retract (retracting is physically more restrictive as demonstrated in the video)

 

It wasn't aimed at anyone bongodriver. It's just a saying from business.

 

Many of us are asking for it, some don't want it or don't think it's necessary so I thought I'd skip the argument and offer a solution. As you say, the key-driven trimming has reasonably realistic timing and as that has already proved possible it seems likely that something similar could be implemented for a rotary.

 

Oh, and Solty, my rotary trimmer is on a separate unit to my X52 Throttle so I do have to take my hand off the throttle to adjust it. It's an old X45 re-hashed into a plastic box with a multi turn pots. Even when it was still just the X45 I had to take my hand off the X52. There are many controller possibilities/combinations.

Edited October 14, 2015 by klem

[Crumpp]

In that demonstration it takes about 20 seconds to do the 22 movements of about 60/70 degrees at a gentle pace.

 

That video lacks aerodynamic forces and only shows the mechanical advantage.

[klem]

That video lacks aerodynamic forces and only shows the mechanical advantage.

 

Of course, it is just a demonstration which is why I focussed on the in-flight video operation of the flaps.

[bongodriver]

Which actually took less time than the ground demo.

[Talisman_VR]

In a human competitive scenario in a flight simulator, for example air racing or air combat, I would like to see a restriction on the number of controls that can be operated at any one time, so that they match the same that could be operated in a realistic manner for each individual aircraft type.

I do not want to compete against pilots with octopus arms. To my mind, if we are to achieve proper simulation that does justice to the high level of detail given to DCS aircraft in other areas, then we should accept such a restriction. Otherwise, we might as well fly a fantasy space ship simulation.

 

 

Perhaps this would solve the cheat/exploit issue regarding trim and many other things. I just do not understand why anyone would want to fly a simulation of such fantastic detail and then overlook such a fundamental issue as to what the pilot could actually operated at any one time in the real aircraft. And as for people who want to use fancy hardware and automatic macros, or whatever you call them, to automatically run a sequence of operations in the air that would normally need to be done manually by the pilot, well I am lost for words; particularly when I read all the effort and passion that goes into forum posts about the need for accurate simulation.