Jump to content

Elevator trim sensitivity/overall control sensitivity


TacticalOni

Recommended Posts

I fight magic wherever I can, so I'm sorry about it 🙂

 

The pitch trim button commands "twitchiness" has NOTHING to do with the flight model, tail heavy aircraft or whatever regarding the real thing.
Mossie doesn't have a motorized trim wheel, like they have in airliners, for example. So "pitch trim up/down" commands are just FAKE and it's strange to talk about how "realisitic" or "unrealistic" they are. They're fake in the first place. They're not there in the real Mossie. They (the button commands) have been prepared for those of us, gamers, who don't have a proper trim wheel, so instead we want to tap joystick buttons or keys on the keyboard to trim the elevator. It's NOT the flight model.

 

All these trim nose up/down commands do is "magically" turn the trim wheel at the arbitrarily pre-programmed speed, set in a Lua file OUTSIDE of the Mossie's flight model.
What we can talk about is is this pre-programmed speed OK for most of ppl or only for few of them? Or no one, IDK.


Personally, I don't care, I got used to the fact that I find most of such pre-programmed speeds in DCS (for various controls) too big (e.g. target wingspan in gunsights), so I just tone them down in Lua files. For many it's a blessing that we can do it on our own, and TBH it was a very smart move from ED, because, at the end of the day, we have all sorts, types and shapes of controls and they (ED) can't really cater for everyone's needs and tastes. It's next to impossible.

 

However, if lots of people - provided it actually is lots - find a very basic flight control (a trim) too twitchy, maybe something can be done about it? I'm not advocating for myself, but for others (I've solved the problem for myself). On the other hand, please notice that no one is whining about rudder trim. Why? Because its speed (for buttons: trim left/right) was so pre-programmed that most people seem to be happy with it.

That's really all there is to it.

 


Edited by scoobie
  • Like 9
  • Thanks 3

i7-8700K 32GB 2060(6GB) 27"@1080p TM Hawg HOTAS TPR TIR5 SD-XL 2xSD+ HC Bravo button/pot box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Trim Sensitivity" may be a misnomer, but I am also having trim problems in that the trim response is too fast.  When turning down trim speed in the lua file (from 1 to .25) I was able properly trim the aircraft.  Would like to see the trim speed/response per button press reduced as to make it usable under cruise conditions.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2021 at 6:23 AM, scoobie said:

. . .

 

Of course you can also multiply such pairs of commands (just make sure you give all of them different descriptions like "Trim Elevator Nose Up Slow As Snail" "fast as hell" or whatever). For example you can make one pair extremely slow (fine trimming during cruise) and another fast trim pair.  I, for that matter, have a tendency in warbirds to assign one pair of trim nose up/down commands to TM Warthog CMS hat up/down, and the other pair to the trim hat (where they technically belong). Up till now they've always had the same speed, but nothing prevents me/you to have different trim speeds on either of them. (CMS hat left/right is also great for rudder trim in warbirds, while ailreron trim may stay on the trim hat).

 

Suit yourself 🙂

 

 

 . . .

 


Man, this is the BOMB!!!

Thanks so much @scoobie The light bulb went on, when I modified the file, and now (as you mention) I can see multiple options to bind "standard speed" or "super slow" in my controls panel.

Really slick - opens up a new way to map controls, and identify them accordingly.


Edited by SmirkingGerbil
  • Like 1

Pointy end hurt! Fire burn!!
JTF-191 25th Draggins - Hawg Main. Black Shark 2, A10C, A10CII, F-16, F/A-18, F-86, Mig-15, Mig-19, Mig-21, P-51, F-15, Su-27, Su-33, Mig-29, FW-190 Dora, Anton, BF 109, Mossie, Normandy, Caucasus, NTTR, Persian Gulf, Channel, Syria, Marianas, WWII Assets, CA. (WWII backer picked aircraft ME-262, P-47D).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By making the lua changes as advised by Scoobie above, I can now trim the Mosquito to fly level hands off. Down side is that I had to redo the lua changes after the latest update as it reset the files to the default. After several trials I have found -0.5 and 0.5 works best for me.

 


Edited by 450Devil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd actually recommend after playing around with this for the last few days is scoobie's lua change on the controls speed, but i found 0.1 the best for fine control.  At 0.2 depending on fuel load and climb profile can still struggle to trim for climb then level. 

 

The point is this is what 10 times less than the standard ED control - clearly its way off.

 

As i said i do not hold that De Havilland constructed a plane that cannot be trimmed for level flight, especially in wartime and with inexperienced crews.  

 

ED need to bring in this fine control as a default setting for this module, that is clear.

Lastly hats off to @scoobie and many thanks for making the module flyable at night...!

  • Like 5

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DCS & BMS

F14B | AV-8B | F15E | F18C | F16C | F5 | F86 | A10C | JF17 | Viggen |Mirage 2000 | F1 |  L-39 | C101 | Mig15 | Mig21 | Mig29 | SU27 | SU33 | F15C | AH64 | MI8 | Mi24 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | P51 | BF109 | FW190A/D | Spitfire | Mossie | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria | South Atlantic | Sinai 

 Liquid Cooled ROG 690 13700K @ 5.9Ghz | RTX3090 FTW Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3600 MHz | 2x2TB SSD m2 Samsung 980/990 | Pimax Crystal/Reverb G2 | MFG Crosswinds | Virpil T50/CM3 | Winwing & Cougar MFD's | Buddyfox UFC | Winwing TOP & CP | Jetseat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think the trim is overly sensitive so much as it's just unstable. Feels like the tail is heavy so it won't trim out to any stable angle. Once it starts to drift out of trim it just progressively gets worse.

It also needs a bunch of right aileron trim, almost a full "notch". Not sure if that's accurate or not. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/27/2021 at 11:36 PM, Hawkeye_UK said:

The point is this is what 10 times less than the standard ED control - clearly its way off.

 

Comparing to the elevator trim in the Spit, absolutely. The Spit's default trim wheel spin rate is equivalent to the Mossies with the 0.25x speed lua edit. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/28/2021 at 7:49 PM, Nealius said:

 

Comparing to the elevator trim in the Spit, absolutely. The Spit's default trim wheel spin rate is equivalent to the Mossies with the 0.25x speed lua edit. 

I’d find it hard to believe that the control input style of the P-51 (very slow initially then ramped up if button/input is held) cannot be reproduced in this mod.  Either way, I think we are all in agreement that the input speed for trim controls is much too fast/coarse atm. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding this modules 'over heavy tail ' making the pitch do what it does.....I find it unbelievable that a leading aircraft manufacturer such as De Havilland would design/create such an aircraft that had such a poor centre of gravity,but I'm no leading aircraft engineer.....far from it,and my understanding was flawed as I was to find out.

 

However it is very difficult to understand why it was so tail heavy,you've only got to look at where the weight is centered on the Mosquito.For a start you've got two....and that's two massive great Merlin 25 engines up front,the undercarriage is also housed in the engine nacelles,you've got the weight of two men in their cockpit up front,you've then got all the armament up front directed in the nose area .....in fact the only part of the aircraft that was partly central was the fuel tanks,located in the,wings,so maybe these counter balanced the aircraft's strange weight distribution,and of course we must'nt forget the aircraft's also made of wood.....it should on paper be very,very light and nose heavy.

 

So why was the Mossie so tail heavy ? it defies understanding,and yet after researching the aircraft's characteristics it truly was this 'tail heavy'.

 

I've been reading about the aircraft from many books to fully understand it's traits and in an excerpt from 'The Miraculous Mosquito' by Stephan Wilkinson,he goes on to say the following,which is quite revealing.

 

The Mosquito was not an easy airplane to fly. As combat aircraft historian Bill Sweetman wrote in his book Mosquito, it was “a slightly nervous thoroughbred which could perform impressive feats in the hands of the courageous and competent…but would occasionally deal out a kick or a bite.” Its power-to-weight ratio and wing loading were both high, and its Vmc—the speed that needs to be maintained to assure rudder effectiveness with one engine feathered and the other running at full power—was, depending on load, an eye-watering 172 mph or more, probably the highest of any WWII twin. The much-maligned B-26 Marauder had a Vmc of about 160 mph.

 

 

There was a substantial no-man’s-land between lift off and Vmc during which an engine failure was usually fatal. Below Vmc, power had to quickly be retarded on the good engine to keep the airplane from rolling, and this meant a loaded Mosquito could no longer maintain altitude. (As cynics have said, the only reason to have two engines on a piston twin is so the good one can take you to the scene of the accident.) When their mounts were fully gassed up and carrying a 4,000-pound blockbuster, Mosquito pilots learned to ignore normal lift off speed and instead keep the airplane on the runway no matter how long it was and pull up when they were just 200 yards or so from the end.

 

On take off, most multi engine airplanes exhibit little or none of the torque-roll/P-factor/slipstream-effect yaw of a powerful single, but a Mosquito’s engines needed to be handled carefully. The effect on yaw of the long, powerful out thrust engines was substantial. Leading with the left engine and opening the throttles judiciously helped, but Mosquitos didn’t have locking tail wheels to hold a heading during the first part of the takeoff roll. So a pilot had to use differential braking to catch takeoff swings, and in typical Brit fashion, a Mosquito’s pneumatic brakes were actuated by the rudder pedals but modulated by air pressure controlled via a bicycle-brake-like lever on the control column. Not a natural process.

 

RAF Mosquito pilots were typically selected for their airmanship and experience, and they handled their Mosquitos with elite talent. The USAAF tried to operate 40 Mosquitos designated F-8 photo reconnaissance and meteorological aircraft, but they crashed many of them, some on the pilots’ very first Mosquito flights. (Granted, many of the crashes were due to mechanical problems.)

 

The F-8 program was a debacle, and in September 1944 it was canceled. It had been championed by Lt. Col. Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son, a low-time private pilot who had been forbidden to fly military aircraft. He trained as a navigator and loved the Mosquito because it let him fly as a crew member on missions over North Africa and the Mediterranean, which of course his unit’s Spitfires and F-4s—photo recon P-38s—couldn’t. Other Twelfth Air Force pilots weren’t so sanguine, and they wrote that “the Mosquito with low- and medium-altitude engines is useless for our purposes. With the Merlin 61 engine its usability has yet to be proven.”

 

Wright Field tested a Mosquito Mk. VII as part of the PR pro­gram and concluded it was “unstable in ascent at speed-of-best-climb. It was tail-heavy and unstable longitudinally during landing approach, especially with full fuselage tanks and center of gravity located near the aft limit, and rather precarious for inexperienced pilots to land in this condition.” The Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions warned: “This airplane is NOT designed for the same manoeuvres as a single-engine fighter, and care must be taken not to impose heavy stresses by coarse use of elevators in pulling out of dives or in turns at high speed. Intentional spinning is NOT permitted. At high speeds violent use and reversal of the rudder at large angles of yaw are to be avoided….Tail heaviness and reduction of elevator control when the flaps are lowered is VERY MARKED….”

 

 


Edited by Basco1
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 2 FS Pc/Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake CPU/Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 1070 G1 8GB/Seagate 2TB FireCuda SSHD/16GB DDR4 2133MHz Memory/Asus STRIX Z270F Gaming Motherboard/Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler/TM Warthog with MFG 10cm Extension/WINWING Orion Rudder Pedals (With Damper Edition)/TrackiR5/Windows 11 Home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

SO what bug are you guys talking about, seems like some of you are off on your own?

Trim sensitivity I cannot reproduce, seems fine here.

Tail heaviness would be another bug, but you need more proof than some text grabbed from somewhere, the COG was set from historical documents

 

But anyways, please remember, one bug per thread. Thanks.

64Sig.png
Forum RulesMy YouTube • My Discord - NineLine#0440• **How to Report a Bug**

1146563203_makefg(6).png.82dab0a01be3a361522f3fff75916ba4.png  80141746_makefg(1).png.6fa028f2fe35222644e87c786da1fabb.png  28661714_makefg(2).png.b3816386a8f83b0cceab6cb43ae2477e.png  389390805_makefg(3).png.bca83a238dd2aaf235ea3ce2873b55bc.png  216757889_makefg(4).png.35cb826069cdae5c1a164a94deaff377.png  1359338181_makefg(5).png.e6135dea01fa097e5d841ee5fb3c2dc5.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

SO what bug are you guys talking about, seems like some of you are off on your own?

Trim sensitivity I cannot reproduce, seems fine here.

Tail heaviness would be another bug, but you need more proof than some text grabbed from somewhere, the COG was set from historical documents

 

But anyways, please remember, one bug per thread. Thanks.

 

So to be clear Nineline are you saying you can trim the mosquito for level flight, leave hands off stick and it wil neither tilt wing down or pitch up or down in altitude, using the standard trim buttons in the menu binded to either a thrustmaster warthog or virpil grip on either base?

 

And you can maintain this level flight for say a few minutes without any further hotas input or corrections? 

 

If so i would love to see a video as this is not my first rodeo 😉 !

  • Like 1

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DCS & BMS

F14B | AV-8B | F15E | F18C | F16C | F5 | F86 | A10C | JF17 | Viggen |Mirage 2000 | F1 |  L-39 | C101 | Mig15 | Mig21 | Mig29 | SU27 | SU33 | F15C | AH64 | MI8 | Mi24 | Huey | KA50 | Gazelle | P47 | P51 | BF109 | FW190A/D | Spitfire | Mossie | CA | Persian Gulf | Nevada | Normandy | Channel | Syria | South Atlantic | Sinai 

 Liquid Cooled ROG 690 13700K @ 5.9Ghz | RTX3090 FTW Ultra | 64GB DDR4 3600 MHz | 2x2TB SSD m2 Samsung 980/990 | Pimax Crystal/Reverb G2 | MFG Crosswinds | Virpil T50/CM3 | Winwing & Cougar MFD's | Buddyfox UFC | Winwing TOP & CP | Jetseat

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Hawkeye_UK said:

 

So to be clear Nineline are you saying you can trim the mosquito for level flight, leave hands off stick and it wil neither tilt wing down or pitch up or down in altitude, using the standard trim buttons in the menu binded to either a thrustmaster warthog or virpil grip on either base?

 

And you can maintain this level flight for say a few minutes without any further hotas input or corrections? 

 

If so i would love to see a video as this is not my first rodeo 😉 !

With all respect old chap,most of these WWII warbirds were all very much hands on,there was no such thing as a hands off stick flying,these were seat of the pants warbirds.....trimming meant that every time you altered pitch,yaw,throttle inputs or prop control inputs you had to re trim this is very hands on....not hands free....this was the game....these aircraft did not act like state of the art computerised jets.


Edited by Basco1
update

Chillblast Fusion Cirrus 2 FS Pc/Intel Core i7-7700K Kaby Lake CPU/Gigabyte Nvidia GTX 1070 G1 8GB/Seagate 2TB FireCuda SSHD/16GB DDR4 2133MHz Memory/Asus STRIX Z270F Gaming Motherboard/Corsair Hydro Series H80i GT Liquid Cooler/TM Warthog with MFG 10cm Extension/WINWING Orion Rudder Pedals (With Damper Edition)/TrackiR5/Windows 11 Home

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@NineLine The issue discussed is trim implementation and not alleged tail heaviness, that should go into separate thread indeed.

 

Let's be clear, what we're talking about is not a BUG by any means, but more of a problem - that's why it's discussed in this forum section. Exactly the same problem we've had in the Spit for years, with the virtual rudder trim wheel rotating too fast when assigned to digital input device: key / button / switch, compared to pitch trim wheel - 4 seconds vs 40 seconds lock to lock, I remember that  very clearly. It made trimming the rudder more difficult than it needed to be but after many posts on the subject it was improved eventually in one of patches a year or so ago (?). Nowadays the wheel rotates slower which allows for much finer control.

 

All we suggest is a similar tweak for Mossie pitch trim. Most of us don't own advanced HOTAS systems with extra high-rez analog axis for it and we have to rely on binding this function to keys or switches. When done so, default 1.0 value of trim wheel rate of default.lua file causes just too coarse trim response, making trimming out for level flight extremely difficult. Again, just like in Spitfire's case more difficult that it needs to be, because 1.0 for digital-to-analog conversion is an arbitrary value anyway.

 

You can request such a tweak to be made by the dev team or not, but your "cannot reproduce" just doesn't cut it. True, "a few minutes" of hands-off flying wrote by Hawkeye above might be an exaggeration (though If Colin Bell said in his recent interview the plane could be trimmed out enough for him to take short naps, maybe it wasn't THAT unstable after all ;)). That being said, please try to trim the elevator using a key or a button for VVI staying about zero even for 30 seconds with default value, then try the same with value lowered to 0,2 or 0,3 ish. See which approach is easier and then decide if you can state "cannot reproduce" again with a straight face. That's all what we're asking. We don't need a bug fix, because there is no bug  here per se, but we'd like to have, let's say, an ergonomics improvement.

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Basco1 said:

With all respect old chap,most of these WWII warbirds were all very much hands on,there was no such thing as a hands off stick flying,these were seat of the pants warbirds.....trimming meant that every time you altered pitch,yaw,throttle inputs or prop control inputs you had to re trim this is very hands on....not hands free....this was the game....these aircraft did not act like state of the art computerised jets.

 


I posted an article in the P51 thread written by an F16 pilot recounting his experiences flying the P51. He reported that the P51 required constant trimming and he had to have his hands on the stick at all times, he also added that his F16 was pretty much the same and couldn’t be trimmed hands off for more than 10 seconds, even with its FBW systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 2:40 PM, NineLine said:

SO what bug are you guys talking about, seems like some of you are off on your own?

Trim sensitivity I cannot reproduce, seems fine here.

Tail heaviness would be another bug, but you need more proof than some text grabbed from somewhere, the COG was set from historical documents

 

But anyways, please remember, one bug per thread. Thanks.

Sir, all due respect, are you really saying that when you use a hat to trim the Mossie, you don't feel like the trim wheel in the plane moves way too much and too fast for every little tap on the hat? Everyone I fly warbirds with on a regular basis, a solid group of 7 or 8 people, as well as everyone in this thread, thinks that the trim wheel in the plane moves way too much given small inputs on a trim hat. As it is by default it is impossible for us to put the trim where we want it. 

 

Making the suggested adjustment to the lua is the only way any of us can trim the plane successfully, literally all of us agree on it. The group I fly with figured this out and made this change on day one of release.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could we just have fast and slow turn mappings for the trim wheels? Problem solved. (Except everyone will argue that fast is too fast and slow is too slow.)

We already have that for controls turned with the mouse wheel. (Hold shift for fast turning speed.)

Now back to that tail heavy flight model, which is the real issue. I can't say where the C of G was on real WWII Mosquitos, but I'd be pretty surprised if it's not forward of the center of lift. If it's aft, well, that would explain why it flies the way it does. But why would they do that?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2021 at 3:32 AM, Basco1 said:

Regarding this modules 'over heavy tail ' making the pitch do what it does.....I find it unbelievable that a leading aircraft manufacturer such as De Havilland would design/create such an aircraft that had such a poor centre of gravity,but I'm no leading aircraft engineer.....far from it,and my understanding was flawed as I was to find out.

 

However it is very difficult to understand why it was so tail heavy,you've only got to look at where the weight is centered on the Mosquito.For a start you've got two....and that's two massive great Merlin 25 engines up front,the undercarriage is also housed in the engine nacelles,you've got the weight of two men in their cockpit up front,you've then got all the armament up front directed in the nose area .....in fact the only part of the aircraft that was partly central was the fuel tanks,located in the,wings,so maybe these counter balanced the aircraft's strange weight distribution,and of course we must'nt forget the aircraft's also made of wood.....it should on paper be very,very light and nose heavy.

 

So why was the Mossie so tail heavy ? it defies understanding,and yet after researching the aircraft's characteristics it truly was this 'tail heavy'.

 

I've been reading about the aircraft from many books to fully understand it's traits and in an excerpt from 'The Miraculous Mosquito' by Stephan Wilkinson,he goes on to say the following,which is quite revealing.

 

The Mosquito was not an easy airplane to fly. As combat aircraft historian Bill Sweetman wrote in his book Mosquito, it was “a slightly nervous thoroughbred which could perform impressive feats in the hands of the courageous and competent…but would occasionally deal out a kick or a bite.” Its power-to-weight ratio and wing loading were both high, and its Vmc—the speed that needs to be maintained to assure rudder effectiveness with one engine feathered and the other running at full power—was, depending on load, an eye-watering 172 mph or more, probably the highest of any WWII twin. The much-maligned B-26 Marauder had a Vmc of about 160 mph.

 

 

There was a substantial no-man’s-land between lift off and Vmc during which an engine failure was usually fatal. Below Vmc, power had to quickly be retarded on the good engine to keep the airplane from rolling, and this meant a loaded Mosquito could no longer maintain altitude. (As cynics have said, the only reason to have two engines on a piston twin is so the good one can take you to the scene of the accident.) When their mounts were fully gassed up and carrying a 4,000-pound blockbuster, Mosquito pilots learned to ignore normal lift off speed and instead keep the airplane on the runway no matter how long it was and pull up when they were just 200 yards or so from the end.

 

On take off, most multi engine airplanes exhibit little or none of the torque-roll/P-factor/slipstream-effect yaw of a powerful single, but a Mosquito’s engines needed to be handled carefully. The effect on yaw of the long, powerful out thrust engines was substantial. Leading with the left engine and opening the throttles judiciously helped, but Mosquitos didn’t have locking tail wheels to hold a heading during the first part of the takeoff roll. So a pilot had to use differential braking to catch takeoff swings, and in typical Brit fashion, a Mosquito’s pneumatic brakes were actuated by the rudder pedals but modulated by air pressure controlled via a bicycle-brake-like lever on the control column. Not a natural process.

 

RAF Mosquito pilots were typically selected for their airmanship and experience, and they handled their Mosquitos with elite talent. The USAAF tried to operate 40 Mosquitos designated F-8 photo reconnaissance and meteorological aircraft, but they crashed many of them, some on the pilots’ very first Mosquito flights. (Granted, many of the crashes were due to mechanical problems.)

 

The F-8 program was a debacle, and in September 1944 it was canceled. It had been championed by Lt. Col. Elliott Roosevelt, FDR’s son, a low-time private pilot who had been forbidden to fly military aircraft. He trained as a navigator and loved the Mosquito because it let him fly as a crew member on missions over North Africa and the Mediterranean, which of course his unit’s Spitfires and F-4s—photo recon P-38s—couldn’t. Other Twelfth Air Force pilots weren’t so sanguine, and they wrote that “the Mosquito with low- and medium-altitude engines is useless for our purposes. With the Merlin 61 engine its usability has yet to be proven.”

 

Wright Field tested a Mosquito Mk. VII as part of the PR pro­gram and concluded it was “unstable in ascent at speed-of-best-climb. It was tail-heavy and unstable longitudinally during landing approach, especially with full fuselage tanks and center of gravity located near the aft limit, and rather precarious for inexperienced pilots to land in this condition.” The Pilot’s Flight Operating Instructions warned: “This airplane is NOT designed for the same manoeuvres as a single-engine fighter, and care must be taken not to impose heavy stresses by coarse use of elevators in pulling out of dives or in turns at high speed. Intentional spinning is NOT permitted. At high speeds violent use and reversal of the rudder at large angles of yaw are to be avoided….Tail heaviness and reduction of elevator control when the flaps are lowered is VERY MARKED….”

 

 

 


Nice stories, but none of that accounts for the tail heavy feeling we're all noticing at all times. Not just when flaps are down for landing and we don't even have the rear fuselage tank to fill yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Playing the devil's advocate here: do we all agree that with the flaps down, the aircraft should be more tail heavy than with the flaps up?

 

If we do, let's take a look at the pilots' notes that recommends 1.5 divisions of nose down trim on takeoff with the flaps down to 15 degrees.

 

In game, 1.5 divisions of nose down trim is not enough to keep it level even with the flaps up. You need 2.0-2.3 . OK, takeoff and level flight happen at different speeds and power settings, so it's not a 100% proof.

 

Then again, I do find it odd that our Mossie requires more ND trim with the flaps up than what is recommended in the original manual in order to compensate the tail heaviness with flaps down.

 

All this being said, the Mossie can still be a generally tail heavy, unstable aircraft, which it seems it was.

 

@Basco1 's insightful quote also specifies 'with flaps down'. Can you guys feel the reduction of elevator control btw?

 

Quote

Tail heaviness and reduction of elevator control when the flaps are lowered is VERY MARKED….”

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reflected said:

Playing the devil's advocate here: do we all agree that with the flaps down, the aircraft should be more tail heavy than with the flaps up?

 

If we do, let's take a look at the pilots' notes that recommends 1.5 divisions of nose down trim on takeoff with the flaps down to 15 degrees.

 

In game, 1.5 divisions of nose down trim is not enough to keep it level even with the flaps up. You need 2.0-2.3 . OK, takeoff and level flight happen at different speeds and power settings, so it's not a 100% proof.

 

Then again, I do find it odd that our Mossie requires more ND trim with the flaps up than what is recommended in the original manual in order to compensate the tail heaviness with flaps down.

 

All this being said, the Mossie can still be a generally tail heavy, unstable aircraft, which it seems it was.

 

@Basco1 's insightful quote also specifies 'with flaps down'. Can you guys feel the reduction of elevator control btw?

 

 


If lowering flaps moves the center of lift forward, then yes.

And yes, even at the highest airspeeds it trims out to a full +2 notches of nose heavy trim which should only be suitable during full flaps landing.

Here's video of a Mossie FB trimmed for cruise with the trim indicator right on the center mark, where you'd expect it to be. (It was about a half notch forward at takeoff.)
 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Reflected said:

If we do, let's take a look at the pilots' notes that recommends 1.5 divisions of nose down trim on takeoff with the flaps down to 15 degrees.

 

In game, 1.5 divisions of nose down trim is not enough to keep it level even with the flaps up. You need 2.0-2.3 . OK, takeoff and level flight happen at different speeds and power settings, so it's not a 100% proof.

 

Concur. I need 2.0+ divisions for all regimes of flight.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, the devil's advocate: I play with a spring centered stick. When I flew the Spit with an FFB, I had to trim the nose slightly down. Now with my TM 16000 I need 1 div nose up. (I've never flown the Mossie with FFB) So I guess our hardware matters too, in case e.g. neutral elevator was achieved with slightly forward stick. Not saying it was, only IF.

 

Then again, that video with the trim centered for cruise is probably the most decisive source I've seen so far.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Reflected said:

Again, the devil's advocate: I play with a spring centered stick. When I flew the Spit with an FFB, I had to trim the nose slightly down. Now with my TM 16000 I need 1 div nose up. (I've never flown the Mossie with FFB) So I guess our hardware matters too, in case e.g. neutral elevator was achieved with slightly forward stick. Not saying it was, only IF.

 

Then again, that video with the trim centered for cruise is probably the most decisive source I've seen so far.


I have a Logitech Wingman 3D FFB. FFB is hit and miss in DCS aircraft for me. Some I can use it, others I have to disable it in. (And that has to be done with the global option, simply turning the forces to zero in the plane's control's setup won't suffice. Even more annoying, you have to restart the whole sim or the default spring forces won't reset when turning FFB off.) It's the first thing I eliminate when I'm having issues, so FFB has nothing to do with anything I'm reporting here.

I can't use FFB in the Spit either, it becomes near uncontrollable and certainly can't be aimed with any accuracy. The Mossie feels suspiciously the same, both in its behavior with and without FFB enabled. In all the other DCS warbirds FFB is useable, but even in the best ones like the Mustang it does throw off trim positions from where you'd expect them to be. (A FFB centering force bias feature would be greatly appreciated.) Certain jets make good use of it as well, like the F-5, but its trim is so impacted that it won't trim out when heavy with FFB enabled. There isn't enough trim authority to compensate for the offset my FFB stick is applying. (Which is a shame because the FFB stick lets the aileron limiter work correctly. Your actual stick's center position moves with the trim too which is super cool. And force-trim in the choppers is to die for!) 

I've verified my stick is calibrated and centers correctly. I'd say to confirm your controls position with the controls indicator but it seems that shows the simulated position, not the true position of your input device. (As I can see my forward trim and almost full notch of right aileron trim on it. The aileron trim is another weird one, by the way, but it's not as serious an issue to fight as the pitch trim.)

 


Edited by BIGNEWY
removed deleted quote
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

thread cleaned, please remember the rules when posting, feel free to use the ignore / block feature if you have to.

 

thanks

  • Like 1

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/7/2021 at 11:00 AM, SMH said:


I have a Logitech Wingman 3D FFB. FFB is hit and miss in DCS aircraft for me. Some I can use it, others I have to disable it in. (And that has to be done with the global option, simply turning the forces to zero in the plane's control's setup won't suffice. Even more annoying, you have to restart the whole sim or the default spring forces won't reset when turning FFB off.) It's the first thing I eliminate when I'm having issues, so FFB has nothing to do with anything I'm reporting here.

I can't use FFB in the Spit either, it becomes near uncontrollable and certainly can't be aimed with any accuracy. The Mossie feels suspiciously the same, both in its behavior with and without FFB enabled. In all the other DCS warbirds FFB is useable, but even in the best ones like the Mustang it does throw off trim positions from where you'd expect them to be. (A FFB centering force bias feature would be greatly appreciated.) Certain jets make good use of it as well, like the F-5, but its trim is so impacted that it won't trim out when heavy with FFB enabled. There isn't enough trim authority to compensate for the offset my FFB stick is applying. (Which is a shame because the FFB stick lets the aileron limiter work correctly. Your actual stick's center position moves with the trim too which is super cool. And force-trim in the choppers is to die for!) 

I've verified my stick is calibrated and centers correctly. I'd say to confirm your controls position with the controls indicator but it seems that shows the simulated position, not the true position of your input device. (As I can see my forward trim and almost full notch of right aileron trim on it. The aileron trim is another weird one, by the way, but it's not as serious an issue to fight as the pitch trim.)

 

 

I suspect this is part of a longer running issue with curves (which throws the whole trim thing out even more) but perhaps makes an existing issue more and more noticeable. 

 

I wonder if we could have an option to have the ffb effect, force in the controls changing but without actually moving the stick when trimming? 

 

Either that or they just need to look into the way the trim (and curves) works with ffb as it is clearly a bit off. 

RTX 2080ti, I7 9700k, 32gb ram, SSD, Samsung Odyssey VR, MSFFB2, T-50 Throttle, Thrustmaster Rudder Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, hazzer said:

I suspect this is part of a longer running issue with curves (which throws the whole trim thing out even more) but perhaps makes an existing issue more and more noticeable. 

 

I wonder if we could have an option to have the ffb effect, force in the controls changing but without actually moving the stick when trimming? 

 

Either that or they just need to look into the way the trim (and curves) works with ffb as it is clearly a bit off. 


Curves affect trim with FFB on, yes. (Maybe force should have a curve setting of its own? And it really needs that bias/offset adjustment I mentioned as well. Both per-plane, just like the current FFB force and effect settings, but also per axis.)

But again, I have FFB disabled any time I'm in the Mosquito. I'd like FFB to work, but I understand with so few FFB sticks on the market these days why ED don't support it well. So it's low on my gripe-list. 😉

The much higher priority to me is getting that pitch stability and trim setting more reasonable. (Could well be the same issue as a tail heavy C of G causes pitch instability and requires forward trim to counter.) Right now I can't use the module for what it's for as aiming is too difficult, which doesn't seem to match its reputation.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...