Missing G-feedback in dogfights

[Nodak]

Big problem is, it's a two way street. Holding a 4 G turn above supersonic, what happens if you lose speed, go through transonic and slower, and stick forces start to drop dramatically for the same G load? Does the curve suddenly start increasing stick aft? To be fair it should if it's also being regulated the other way. Otherwise it's computer controlled FBW.

[captain_dalan]

I don't get it guys, has something changed in the last two weeks i've not been able to fly? She wasn't that that easy to break at all unless you introduced lateral stick at something like an 8g turn.

[Donut]

Big problem is, it's a two way street. Holding a 4 G turn above supersonic, what happens if you lose speed, go through transonic and slower, and stick forces start to drop dramatically for the same G load? Does the curve suddenly start increasing stick aft? To be fair it should if it's also being regulated the other way. Otherwise it's computer controlled FBW.

 

Good point. The curve would really have to be dynamic and have some good logic built into it in regards to how the curve is applied.

 

I don't get it guys, has something changed in the last two weeks i've not been able to fly? She wasn't that that easy to break at all unless you introduced lateral stick at something like an 8g turn.

 

Nothing has changed. You are correct about that high g and lateral stick input. My point is that I am trying to see if stick forces felt in a real aircraft could somehow be artificially replicated with dynamic input curves. As of right now, we can all throw the stick around as we please with absolutely no feedback, no matter what the g load or speed is. This can lead to over controlling and adding too much stick input, especially in areas of high AoA and high g.

[captain_dalan]

 

 

 

Nothing has changed. You are correct about that high g and lateral stick input. My point is that I am trying to see if stick forces felt in a real aircraft could somehow be artificially replicated with dynamic input curves. As of right now, we can all throw the stick around as we please with absolutely no feedback, no matter what the g load or speed is. This can lead to over controlling and adding too much stick input, especially in areas of high AoA and high g.

Ah i see now :thumbup:

 

I don't know if a possible solution exists without a true FFB stick. Controlling the curve would result in restricting stick deflection where there should be none and that won't help realism either :unsure:. Dunno, maybe an optional control delay input? But that would even less intuitive then the things are now.

 

My recommendation (for the time being) would be no user stick curves at all and practicing muscle memory to avoid unwanted lateral inputs.

[Donut]

My recommendation (for the time being) would be no user stick curves at all and practicing muscle memory to avoid unwanted lateral inputs.

 

That is exactly what I am doing...zero input curves except for rudder, practice and more stick time. However, I still feel that I am using an unrealistic amount of thought and focus on my stick inputs.

[Ignition]

I've limited the Y axis on pitch to help the pull up on high speeds but it makes the low speeds turn worst.

 

 

We need a dynamic Y axis which allow to break the plane at high g if you wish but help to control the plane at high speed.

[draconus]

Terrible idea. People come to fly non-fbw aircraft just for that. I have a freedom in moving the stick and when I move it I know where it is and where I want it. It is my responsibility as a pilot to know if I am speeding and how much G can I pull. I don't want any artificial system to strip me from that knowledge by changing the stick position ingame vs desktop. I get buffeting and visual references of how the aircraft behaves - it's good enough for many not only to not break anything but still excel in dogfights.

Apply this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232264 and you'll be fine. Other than that - practice!

[Nooch]

Terrible idea. People come to fly non-fbw aircraft just for that. I have a freedom in moving the stick and when I move it I know where it is and where I want it. It is my responsibility as a pilot to know if I am speeding and how much G can I pull. I don't want any artificial system to strip me from that knowledge by changing the stick position ingame vs desktop. I get buffeting and visual references of how the aircraft behaves - it's good enough for many not only to not break anything but still excel in dogfights.

Apply this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232264 and you'll be fine. Other than that - practice!

 

Very true. There will always be some people here complaining about the way the aircraft is simulated when all they lack in fact is the skill.

[discwalker]

I flew the Tomcat a very little because of ease to overstress the plane with light stick movement.

All the time I not be able to turn with inside concentration to the instruments.

Tomcat is ideal for draconus, good to you.

[Donut]

Very true. There will always be some people here complaining about the way the aircraft is simulated when all they lack in fact is the skill.

 

Good point. Maybe I am trying to achieve and simulate a level of realism that is not possible. I need to treat this as what is, a desktop simulation/game with a joystick, and realise that I may not be able to achieve certain things felt and experienced in the real aircraft. I need to become a better PC gamer and develop those skills more than trying to be a real pilot.

[Fri13]

Changing the stick curves based AoA is unrealistic. It is a safety mechanism that would allow virtual pilot to relax on controls as they know that they have more flexibility in stick movements at critical moments, and so on safe.

 

The teal sick that gives more stiffness, doesn't change the responsiveness, meaning to move stick 2cm is still same at 1G as it is 6G but you need far more arm strength to move that 2 cm.

 

Now if we change it dynamically so at higher G you need to move stick more, like instead 2cm you need to move 6cm, then you run out of the input range and that means you are having not just "training wheels" that help you avoid danger movement, but you as well are using "cheats" as you don't need to worry about pulling too much.

 

So it literally is a digital fly-by-wire in a aircraft that doesn't have one.

 

What should be done, for all aircrafts, is to increase G-effects visually and audible like breathing.

We do not need blackout, but grayout and loss of colors etc. Just like the pilots reports in the G-chamber.

 

So more loss of visual colors and sharpness in edges of vision etc. Heavier breathing and sharper HIC's etc.

 

That would seriously fudge gameplay as well because players can't just pull Max G without loss of sight of enemy. As well there should be limit for head rotation at the rear/sides at higher G, meaning that camera is required to turn forward at higher G to minimize effect and maximize recovery.

 

Like how many can turn their head around, lean forward and check six while pulling 4-7G?

Edited May 11, 2019 by Fri13

[Nooch]

There is handy way to see how many G's you are pulling in real time by enabling the cockpit status bar. Hit LCTRL+Y to bring it up. Just make sure you have the option "cockpit status bar" checked in the "Misc" tab in the options menu. Hit LCTRL+Y twice to make it disappear.

[captain_dalan]

Terrible idea. People come to fly non-fbw aircraft just for that. I have a freedom in moving the stick and when I move it I know where it is and where I want it. It is my responsibility as a pilot to know if I am speeding and how much G can I pull. I don't want any artificial system to strip me from that knowledge by changing the stick position ingame vs desktop. I get buffeting and visual references of how the aircraft behaves - it's good enough for many not only to not break anything but still excel in dogfights.

Apply this https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=232264 and you'll be fine. Other than that - practice!

Exactly, artificial stick restrictions are not a good idea. More feedback might be, but that's not F-14 specific.

[Hummingbird]

I use 15 in curve for Pitch and 12 for Roll, both with 2 in deadzone, works perfect for me and I have no issues with feel at all.

[Nodak]

Big thing that's going to immediately have a positive impact is an extension on a good quality stick. That in itself is going to dampen and smooth out the inputs. Closer you can get it to the actual scale of motion, the better. Easy to see in VR where you can set them up to match, much harder to break wings than.

[Donut]

I use 15 in curve for Pitch and 12 for Roll, both with 2 in deadzone, works perfect for me and I have no issues with feel at all.

 

For me, I found that adding +15 curves would only make the the situation worse by increasing sensitivity at higher stick inputs, which is exactly where you are at when pulling high g or AoA when performing ACM.

 

I messed around forever with curves and ended back at zero for pitch and roll. I could also never find a curve that would provide 1:1 in game stick:joystick movement, even at zero curve.

[Fri13]

Big thing that's going to immediately have a positive impact is an extension on a good quality stick. That in itself is going to dampen and smooth out the inputs.

 

That is going to be the problem once F-16 gets out. As it's own special stick really do require the old thrustmaster stick with same function.

 

As well there are some aircrafts now that has two axis at different heights, a pitch at full stick length and roll at middle of stick length. That makes interesting as it requires not curves but sensitivity adjustment, if there is a difference in reality for input.

[Dudikoff]

Exactly, artificial stick restrictions are not a good idea. More feedback might be, but that's not F-14 specific.

 

It's not really artificial since in the real airplane you'd have some feedback on the controls that would prevent you from easily pushing over the limits at high speed and this you can't achieve here without an FFB stick.

 

Besides, nobody proposed a one size fits all kind of a thing, but simply some ideas for an optional control variant (e.g. like the Ka-50 has with its "artificial" trimming options). You don't want it, you don't have to use it.

[eatthis]

if youre pulling enough gs in a dogfight to tear the plane apart then youre way too fast

[Dudikoff]

if youre pulling enough gs in a dogfight to tear the plane apart then youre way too fast

 

It didn't really happen in a dogfight to me, I was just using the external views or something and when I got back into the cockpit, the plane was in a thirty degree dive, but presumably rather fast. I pulled slightly, but I guess due to the speed, it didn't seem to pull much and the sea level seemed to be getting close so I added more pull (maybe half the axis in total) and I could hear the plane break down instantly and enter a downward spin, while the screen turned black. So, it was not a normal situation as I completely lost track of the situation because I was not at the controls, but still, the plane seemed to break rather easy while realistically, you would be restrained from pulling too much that easy.

[eatthis]

It didn't really happen in a dogfight to me, I was just using the external views or something and when I got back into the cockpit, the plane was in a thirty degree dive, but presumably rather fast. I pulled slightly, but I guess due to the speed, it didn't seem to pull much and the sea level seemed to be getting close so I added more pull (maybe half the axis in total) and I could hear the plane break down instantly and enter a downward spin, while the screen turned black. So, it was not a normal situation as I completely lost track of the situation because I was not at the controls, but still, the plane seemed to break rather easy while realistically, you would be restrained from pulling too much that easy.

 

lack of situational awareness killed you, ive done it too lol. throttle idle brakes and pull gently, dont yank it! you get plenty of cues if you dont panic

[captain_dalan]

It's not really artificial since in the real airplane you'd have some feedback on the controls that would prevent you from easily pushing over the limits at high speed and this you can't achieve here without an FFB stick.

 

 

It is artificial in the way it prohibits stick movement. Not just preventing you from easily pushing over the limits, but preventing you from pushing over them period. Even if you wanted to. Even if you needed to (i.e. to prevent a crash or mid air).

 

I was initially playing with the idea of "delayed input". Say the higher the g, the more delayed the stick input. I.e. at 8g, a stick would take 2s time to fully respond to the extra pull. This would give the black out effect time to kick in and alert you to your state. But imagine the hell of getting used to a dynamic input delay. Not to mention even that isn't realistic, as i doubt a trained aviator needs that much time to pull the stick.....

[Dudikoff]

It is artificial in the way it prohibits stick movement. Not just preventing you from easily pushing over the limits, but preventing you from pushing over them period. Even if you wanted to. Even if you needed to (i.e. to prevent a crash or mid air).

 

I was initially playing with the idea of "delayed input". Say the higher the g, the more delayed the stick input. I.e. at 8g, a stick would take 2s time to fully respond to the extra pull. This would give the black out effect time to kick in and alert you to your state. But imagine the hell of getting used to a dynamic input delay. Not to mention even that isn't realistic, as i doubt a trained aviator needs that much time to pull the stick.....

 

I see what you mean, but, what's the point of having more G's to pull if those G's are not really usable (as they would result in an instant plain destruction as it is currently)? In the real airplane, you'd have to pull with more force to get that result. Since on a non-FFB stick, the force appears roughly linear, a higher force pull would result with a higher input value so to me it makes sense.

 

If it doesn't make sense for you or you feel it would be awkward to get used to, that's fine, but, I mean, limiting the G's is a problem in emergency situations, but 2s time-delay isn't? :)

 

I'm not really asking for this nor saying that it's the ideal solution. I've suffered this insta-death like two or three times in total and the idea came to me immediately as a result, but I haven't given it any thought afterwards. Only when I saw someone else had the same line of thought, I backed it up, that's all there is to it. Personally, I hope that this behavior would get tweaked further in some way with time by HB.

 

But, as any such solution would be an *optional* input method, what I don't understand are the righteous posters shooting down any such proposals as a blasphemy even though they would never have to use them.

Edited May 13, 2019 by Dudikoff

[Ignition]

...

 

But, as any such solution would be an *optional* input method, what I don't understand are the righteous posters shooting down any such proposals as a blasphemy even though they would never have to use them.

 

 

Exactly, for them is black or white. They think they are flying the real F-14 when in reality they're playing a game. But hey, they have "skill", a "skill" that in the real plane you don't need.

[Cab]

Exactly, for them is black or white. They think they are flying the real F-14 when in reality they're playing a game. But hey, they have "skill", a "skill" that in the real plane you don't need.

 

Agreed. What is frustrating about this argument is the constant reference to “realism.” Having no g-feedback and increasing stick forces is not realistic. Being able to rip the wings off with no warning is unrealistic. Attempting to “simulate” those by some other means is completely reasonable.

 

The engineers increased stick forces with g for a reason, you know.