Spitfire IX - Snapping those wings off

[OnlyforDCS]

You're definitely NOT an idiot, and no worries mate!

 

It's really easy to get our wires crossed when communicating in this way. This is the internet after all :)

Edited May 10, 2017 by OnlyforDCS

[arglmauf]

I like to imagine that every DCS player is actually a big green Hulk yelling "HULK PULL!" when they snap the wings off:P

 

109 had the problem, it was "fixed". I'm certain the spit will get a fix too sooner or later. Until then, it's actually teaching people to develop a consciousness for what they put the plane through when they yank that stick around. Consider it a teaching instrument.

 

I for myself have to get so many bad habits from CloD out of my head and yanking the stick too much is one of them.

Edited May 10, 2017 by arglmauf

[OnlyforDCS]

I like to imagine that every DCS player is actually a big green Hulk yelling "HULK PULL!" when they snap the wings off:P

 

 

lmao :megalol:

[Tomsk]

The Spitfire's controls are very accurately modeled. What is impossible to model is the strength and speed with which any individual pilot can pull on the control column.

 

Except of course that the strength of the pilot is (partially) modelled in terms of control stiffening. This is what virtually every WWII combat flight sim does, as a combat flight sim without control stiffening has lots of really unrealistic behaviours. The issue (IMO) is just that this modelling is a little over simplified, and a bit of effort improving what's already there would alleviate this issue considerably.

[arglmauf]

Except of course that the strength of the pilot is (partially) modelled in terms of control stiffening. This is what virtually every WWII combat flight sim does, as a combat flight sim without control stiffening has lots of really unrealistic behaviours. The issue (IMO) is just that this modelling is a little over simplified, and a bit of effort improving what's already there would alleviate this issue considerably.

 

You could argue that the way DCS does it, is "closer" to proper modelling than introducing simulating curves. Basically: Stick deflection by X amount equals control deflection by X amount. Only problem being that there aren't controllers out there that are capable of matching the accuracy of what DCS can model:) Technically, if somebody builds a 1:1 replica of the controls and hooks up some lawn mower engines for the FFB (everything adjusted to give the proper stiffness of course), you could make use of the way DCS models things... Totally unrealistic standards for 99.99% of the players though:)

 

So yes, simulating the effort the pilot would have to make and accepting this leads to some disconnects (or delays) between how much you deflect your stick and how much deflection happens in game is the acceptable middle way imho.

Edited May 10, 2017 by arglmauf

[amazingme]

Some kind of pilot stamina/fatigue would be nice to have.. For example.. if you pulled 7 Gs for 5 seconds, next time you won't be allowed to pull more than, let's say, 5 Gs for 3 seconds.

As of now, there is a huge difference between how a Spitfire pilot loses consciousness (G-loc) and how a 109 pilot does it. We need some consistency in this area too. I uploaded some videos to demonstrate this, but no answers were given..

[philstyle]

there is a huge difference between how a Spitfire pilot loses consciousness (G-loc) and how a 109 pilot does it. .

 

I watched your videos, but I wasn't sure what, specifically, you were trying to point out.

 

It seemed that in your videos, your spitfire pilot was able to exercise control even when blacked out. But I was unable to repeat this.

When blacked out in the Spitfire, my controls are completed unresponsive. Did you actually black out the spitfire pilot? It doesn't seem like it from the video. I can see you reduced the control input as the screen was almost black to about 10% input. But in the 109, you kept it applied at much, much more input.

Between the 6 and 12 second mark, you progressively decreased your control input, this enabled you to "ride" the blackout.

 

The 109 pilot blacked out completely (the breathing stops and the controls instantly drop to zero input), however in your spit video, you relaxed the control input yourself and kept the pilot "awake", but with no vision. if you had pulled just a little more G (like you did with the 109) it would have been a fair test.

See 2-5 seconds, you keep the elevator on without rducing it like you did in the spitfire, and it suddenly drops to zero at the blackout.

 

 

What's more, in the spitfire, if I blackout with the trigger on, the guns just keep on firing whilst I'm blacked out. This is not correct IMO, the pilots muscles should relax under greyout/ blackout, releasing any depressed controls.

Edited May 10, 2017 by philstyle

[OnlyforDCS]

Except of course that the strength of the pilot is (partially) modelled in terms of control stiffening. This is what virtually every WWII combat flight sim does, as a combat flight sim without control stiffening has lots of really unrealistic behaviours. The issue (IMO) is just that this modelling is a little over simplified, and a bit of effort improving what's already there would alleviate this issue considerably.

 

There is no control stiffening in DCS. Here is the reasoning by Yo-Yo, and I agree with him:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2902390&postcount=47

 

What we have is control clipping. However the elevators on the Spit are light enough that they do not clip, at least not before you are able to break the wings. At least that is my understanding of the matter.

Edited May 10, 2017 by OnlyforDCS
spelling

[DD_Fenrir]

Well logically it'd be 12%, since that's 20% of 60%. As far as I can determine the controls window only shows the position of the controls, and how the curves affect it, not the effect on the elevator.

 

You're quite right - I improperly interpreted the data there and as such could be wrong on the control stiffening implementation. We know for example that air load is not yet modelled on the rudder, I don't know if this could also be true for elevator; this is a beta product after all.

 

Control stiffening is modelled, this acts as a limit to how far the player can deflect the stick at high airspeeds. However, the issue as I see it is that there is no restriction on how quickly you can reach that limit. It seems you can go from stick neutral to the full limit of the control stiffening (i.e. the full limit of human strength) in an instant. It's like the control stiffening keeps the controls within a certain "box", however you can move the controls within that box as fast as you like. Because of that you can instantly apply enough strength to shear the wings off. This is highly unrealistic, a real human pilot does not function that way.

 

Generally this behaviour of control stiffening as speeds increase is logically sound but again you assume that this specifically applies to the Spitfire; the fact is that there are many factors in control authority and given that there were a number of Spitfire break ups and wing wrinkling due to over stressing the airframe at high speeds during the war, I would suggest it's not so heavy - and therefore difficult to apply the requisite force - as you would assume.

 

I would argue the modelling of control stiffening is incomplete: it only models one aspect of the pilot's strength (the maximum amount they can deflect the stick) but not the other aspect (how quickly they can reach that maximum). Because of this incomplete modelling the result is the "silly" (i.e. unrealistic) sort of situation you see in game where players are snapping their wings much too frequently. The fact that you can learn to avoid it (and I have by the way), doesn't mean that it's not unrealistic.

 

Point duly noted - but there's no hard data been provided that proves that it IS unrealistic.

 

Yo-yo has had a great deal of data on the stick-force gradients for the Spitfire and as he's the man developing thie FM we are obliged to trust his implementation.

 

Now it is true that a great deal of the behaviour of the 109 changed between pre-purchase and final release so there is precedent that something is missing from the Spitfire equation that makes it more difficult to generate the overload conditions.

 

However, for now, it is what it is; I for one suspect little will change as I don't think it's far off.

 

What it boils down to is that the wing breakers crowd have a choice -

 

1) keep flying in the manner they do currently and bemoaning wing breaking until the final release in which something *may* change for their better

 

or

 

2) make the neceassary adjustments to their control setups and more importantly their flying technique to avoid overloading the airframe in the first place so in the interim they are able to better enjoy the module in it's current state at which point any changes accrued at final relaease are irrelevant or require marginal adjustment to flying technique.

 

I would not want to see an artificial unrealistic control effect implemented for the sake of what would boil down to customer ego's.

 

For what it's worth I have a Microsoft Sidewinder FFB 2. Pitch Saturation is at 100% and Curve at 27%.

 

I haven't snapped a wing since December. Go figure.

[amazingme]

I watched your videos, but I wasn't sure what, specifically, you were trying to point out.

 

It seemed that in your videos, your spitfire pilot was able to exercise control even when blacked out. But I was unable to repeat this.

When blacked out in the Spitfire, my controls are completed unresponsive. Did you actually black out the spitfire pilot? It doesn't seem like it from the video. I can see you reduced the control input as the screen was almost black to about 10% input. But in the 109, you kept it applied at much, much more input.

Between the 6 and 12 second mark, you progressively decreased your control input, this enabled you to "ride" the blackout.

 

The 109 pilot blacked out completely (the breathing stops and the controls instantly drop to zero input), however in your spit video, you relaxed the control input yourself and kept the pilot "awake", but with no vision. if you had pulled just a little more G (like you did with the 109) it would have been a fair test.

See 2-5 seconds, you keep the elevator on without rducing it like you did in the spitfire, and it suddenly drops to zero at the blackout.

 

 

What's more, in the spitfire, if I blackout with the trigger on, the guns just keep on firing whilst I'm blacked out. This is not correct IMO, the pilots muscles should relax under greyout/ blackout, releasing any depressed controls.

 

Indeed, both pilots blacked out but only the 109 pilot actually lost conciousness (g-loc). More interesting is that the 109 pilot lost it exactly when releasing the stick. You can actually see it when it happens. Another issue is that in 109, even if the pilot is out, he can exert forces on the controls.. e.g flaps.

[philstyle]

Indeed, both pilots blacked out but only the 109 pilot actually lost conciousness (g-loc).

When I fly the spit, I can easily achieve full G-loc.

I don't see any kind of issue from that respect.

I am unable to replicate what you are claiming (that the spitfire pilot will not go into G-loc).

[amazingme]

He will go into g-loc of course.. but the 109 pilot is a little girl compared to the spit pilot. I was wondering why the 109 pilot will go into g-loc when he releases the stick.. every time.

[philstyle]

He will go into g-loc of course.. but the 109 pilot is a little girl compared to the spit pilot. I was wondering why the 109 pilot will go into g-loc when he releases the stick.. every time.

 

 

 

I think that he releases the stick when he goes into G-Loc, not the other way around. It is the G-loc that relaxes his mucles, forcing him to let go of the stick. This makes physiological sense.

[The Black Swan]

This is why literally everyone who has a warthog should get an extension.

It's so worth it you won't regret it.

GET IT RIGHT NAOW.

And I just use the 7cm one lol I can't imagine how good it is on longer extensions.

[philstyle]

This is why literally everyone who has a warthog should get an extension. It's so worth it you won't regret it.

GET IT RIGHT NAOW. And I just use the 7cm one lol I can't imagine how good it is on longer extensions.

 

 

Completely agree with you.

I've just ordered a new desk mount for my warthog.

I am going to order a stick extension as soon as the mounts arrive and I can see how much space I'll have for an extension.

 

 

It seems to me that warthog users are the folks who have been having the most issues with this. . .

[amazingme]

I think that he releases the stick when he goes into G-Loc, not the other way around. It is the G-loc that relaxes his mucles, forcing him to let go of the stick. This makes physiological sense.

Not really.. he g-locs IF I release the stick..

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Quadg]

i was going to get an extension for flying the huey.

 

then someone said take the return spring out the warthog.

 

been six months and i have still not bought an extension.

 

so try removing your spring,

its free and has no delivery time, and plenty of how too vids.

[Yo-Yo]

This is a little bit of an oversimplification phil. I fly both Warbirds and the modern jets in DCS. All of them have extremely accurate control systems modeling. Whether by cables, hydraulics, fly by wire or some combination of all three, depending on the airframe in question.

 

The Spitfire's controls are very accurately modeled. What is impossible to model is the strength and speed with which any individual pilot can pull on the control column. That is left up to us, our hardware and the way we can set up our controls with curves and such.

 

By all accounts the elevators of the real Spit were very light in the pitch axis, and this was one of the endearing qualities of the real Spitfires. Most WW2 pilots note in their accounts that they didn't have to fight the controls as much in the Spit as in other planes of the era. This made the Spit very easy to fly when maneuvering.

 

Does this mean that it was possible to pull the wings of the real spitfire? I don't think we will ever know. Im sure that no one tried to do it on purpose :) In any case most pilots were probably trained to know the limits of their airframes and not to exceed them.

 

I guess what Im trying to say is why whine and complain, when you can fly and train? :)

 

 

You are right. The Spifire has about 5 lbs per g, that is much lower than usually considered optimal, so, you easiliy can pull 50 lbs (~23 kg) to get 10g or more. That is much lowerthe value where the force limiting model begins to work.

 

There are several reasons to be very careful pulling g in the Spitfire: low wing loading, so the same g-force is available at lower IAS, so at lower M, so the higher CLmax is available; low elevator displacement per g, low hinge moment of the elevator.

The Mustang is less dangerous because of higher wing loading, but it has better CLmax around M~0.55, so it is possible to rip off the wings (in RL too).

Dora has normal CLmax vs M dependance, so it is less prone wings off. and 109 adds control stiffness making it the safest.

 

So, as we have no g-load cues (I think, adrenaline makes no difference in 16 or 30 kg stick load) the best way is to watch the angular velocity at different IAS. Practice and parctice... :)

[Pocket Sized]

the best way is to watch the angular velocity at different IAS. Practice and parctice... :)

 

This is exactly what I do.

[Tomsk]

Dora has normal CLmax vs M dependance, so it is less prone wings off. and 109 adds control stiffness making it the safest.

 

Are there plans to add control stiffness modelling to the other WWII warbirds?

 

So, as we have no g-load cues

 

Are there plans to add some g-load cues, such as audio feedback, that the structural limits of the plane are being exceeded? These could help make up for the missing real life cues such as the extreme heaviness of the stick, and the physical experience of g-load.

[Yo-Yo]

Are there plans to add control stiffness modelling to the other WWII warbirds?

 

 

 

Are there plans to add some g-load cues, such as audio feedback, that the structural limits of the plane are being exceeded? These could help make up for the missing real life cues such as the extreme heaviness of the stick, and the physical experience of g-load.

 

 

All aircraft, including L-39, already have this model. Any aircraft has the limits based on the same pilot's force model, but not all of them even reaches the limits. Generally, roll is limited, and pitch is noticably limited in 109 only.

 

I remember you were told that applying stick abruptly you won't hear the cues, and even if you coul hear it you can not react... anyway, the real airplane is not a sailing boat of XIX century - it's very stiff and solid, and the sound of the prop, engine and wind are much more powerful than any others.

[Pocket Sized]

Are there plans to add control stiffness modelling to the other WWII warbirds?

 

Read his post again. The spit doesn't NEED elevator force implemented because the pitch forces were extremely low IRL compared to other fighters.

 

Edit: sniped by Yo-Yo

[Quadg]

people are going to complain about this forever :)

 

and the answer will be "didn't you get the memo?"

 

which will create instant flame wars..

 

the spitfire crashes more, because its default is furthest from safe than all the other warbirds. so change your curves..

 

memo received.

 

a rather large warning in the manual may help too :)

[The Black Swan]

i was going to get an extension for flying the huey.

 

then someone said take the return spring out the warthog.

 

been six months and i have still not bought an extension.

 

so try removing your spring,

its free and has no delivery time, and plenty of how too vids.

 

A little OT but wouldn't that only change the way the center feels?

That wouldn't change your throw of the stick and therefore not help sensitivity right?

[arglmauf]

people are going to complain about this forever :)

 

and the answer will be "didn't you get the memo?"

 

which will create instant flame wars..

 

the spitfire crashes more, because its default is furthest from safe than all the other warbirds. so change your curves..

 

memo received.

 

a rather large warning in the manual may help too :)

 

What people need to realize and remember is that the problem here is not due to mismodelling on the side of DCS but a "mismodelling" of our controllers. Doing anything to hinder us from breaking our wings off (which as I understand it would be perfectly possible with the real plane if you yanked that stick up like we do) would be diminishing the actual simulation accuracy that DCS offers.