Pitch Axis Tune

[dresoccer4]

What do other people have their pitch axis tuned to? I currently have:

 

Saturation Y: 75 

Curvature: 15

 

And it still feels pretty twitchy. 

[JayOneFox3]

usually dont touch Saturation 

[speed-of-heat]

at the moment i have it set the same as Phil Style's "sexy curves" for the spitfire.

[dresoccer4]

5 minutes ago, speed-of-heat said:

at the moment i have it set the same as Phil Style's "sexy curves" for the spitfire.

what are the numbers?

[speed-of-heat]

not on  real PC at the moment 

 

but the video is here 

 

 

[MAXsenna]

I have a 40 cm extension and no curves or saturation, and it's still super twitchy.

Barely touched it in a dive, and I was suddenly a torpedo with ghost propellers.

 

 

 

[dresoccer4]

3 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

I have a 40 cm extension and no curves or saturation, and it's still super twitchy.

Barely touched it in a dive, and I was suddenly a torpedo with ghost propellers.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, speed-of-heat said:

not on  real PC at the moment 

 

but the video is here 

 

 

 

sexy af

[Morrov]

A curve of 15 on both axis works for me. Still a bit twitchy, but in a way that doesn't bother me and feels "right".

[DD_Fenrir]

My custom input curve, pitch only.

 

0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 44, 100

Edited September 24, 2021 by DD_Fenrir

[DD_fruitbat]

8 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

My custom input curve, pitch only.

 

0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, 24, 44, 100

 

 

I use the same, can recommend. 

[The LT]

No curves, no sat, nothing. Like it is meant to be flown. Until proper ffb sticks get on the market, we'll suffer.

[Hiob]

31 minutes ago, The LT said:

No curves, no sat, nothing. Like it is meant to be flown. Until proper ffb sticks get on the market, we'll suffer.

That really doesn't make any sense.

Even a FFB joystick will never have the exact length and travel, or leverage or force, than a given simulated aircraft.

That is what the adjustment curves are meant for. Not using them and suggesting that is, how "it is meant to be flown" is just XXXXXX unreasonable.

On 9/23/2021 at 10:27 PM, dresoccer4 said:

What do other people have their pitch axis tuned to? I currently have:

 

Saturation Y: 75 

Curvature: 15

 

And it still feels pretty twitchy. 

10-15 is what I have on most aircraft - for the mossie it is a lot more (in pitch), from the top of my head - I settled with 25 I think.

[The LT]

That really doesn't make any sense.
Even a FFB joystick will never have the exact length and travel, or leverage or force, than a given simulated aircraft.
That is what the adjustment curves are meant for. Not using them and suggesting that is, how "it is meant to be flown" is just XXXXXX unreasonable.

It is too bad it does not make any sense to you.

Real aircraft has forces acting on the control stick. Spring loaded sticks lack those forces near the center. That is the problem with "twitchiness". Using curves does not solve it. It just reduces your control precision even further on deflections further from the center. Saturation is even worse.

With a proper ffb or force stick, you will get fine control near the center.
Bottom line: spring loaded sticks are the problem here, not the aircraft modeling.

And yes, proper ffb stick should have force profiles for different aircraft.

[Basco1]

40 minutes ago, The LT said:

No curves, no sat, nothing. Like it is meant to be flown. Until proper ffb sticks get on the market, we'll suffer.

 

ROFL....,no suffering here.

[The LT]

 
ROFL....,no suffering here.

I fly with a floor-mounted BRD stick, so I can't complain, but as I said earlier, desk stick users may suffer from twitchiness.

[Basco1]

20 minutes ago, The LT said:

It is too bad it does not make any sense to you.

Real aircraft has forces acting on the control stick. Spring loaded sticks lack those forces near the center. That is the problem with "twitchiness". Using curves does not solve it. It just reduces your control precision even further on deflections further from the center. Saturation is even worse.

With a proper ffb or force stick, you will get fine control near the center.
Bottom line: spring loaded sticks are the problem here, not the aircraft modeling.

And yes, proper ffb stick should have force profiles for different aircraft.

Does'nt make any sense to me either....and with all respect this is just your opinion.....you say no curves,no sat,nothing.Like it's meant to be flown....but this is purely your take on it.....how do we know the module's FM is 100% correct ?.....it's a sim,it ain't the real thing,it can only ever be a close representation.To say 'like it's meant to be flown' is some what arrogant,like only your opinion counts.

 

I find FFB totally off putting,certainly not realistic in any shape or form....I'm sure the real aircraft would'nt have shaking forces going through the stick,or not to the extent of PC FFB sticks present anyway,they are precise instruments,for precise control.....not shaking with vibration constantly,this FFB is just crass interpretation of the PC sim world.

 

FFB IMHO takes away the preciseness that I personally want from my stick when flying......however these are only my opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[The LT]

12 minutes ago, Basco1 said:

Does'nt make any sense to me either....and with all respect this is just your opinion.....you say no curves,no sat,nothing.Like it's meant to be flown....but this is purely your take on it.....how do we know the module's FM is 100% correct ?.....it's a sim,it ain't the real thing,it can only ever be a close representation.To say 'like it's meant to be flown' is some what arrogant,like only your opinion counts.

 

I find FFB totally off putting,certainly not realistic in any shape or form....I'm sure the real aircraft would'nt have shaking forces going through the stick,or not to the extent of PC FFB sticks present anyway,they are precise instruments,for precise control.....not shaking with vibration constantly,this FFB is just crass interpretation of the PC sim world.

 

FFB IMHO takes away the preciseness that I personally want from my stick when flying......however these are only my opinions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

What do you mean "my take on it"? It's ED's take on it, based on research.

By introducing saturation, you're basically altering your stick deflection. By introducing curve, you're introducing non-linearity. Both are ultimately undesirable and are there just as a measure to cope with entry-level controller problems.

Nowhere have I expressed any arrogance about it, don't imagine things. There isn't any "take on it". In real aircraft, you have forces acting on your control column. Which give substantial weight and load to your flight controls. Something you don't get in spring-loaded sticks. FFB's eventual aim is to provide those forces. Whether older consumer ffb devices manage to accomplish this and to what extent is another matter.

 

There are custom "next-gen" FFB devices being developed by enthusiasts in conjunction with real-life aerobatics pilots. When properly done, they will put an end to this problem as we will have substantial stick loading in near-neutral position.

 

Proper FFB implementation should add precision, not take it away. True precision flying can only be achieved when you have a feeling of aerodynamic forces acting on your flight controls.

 

Oh, and yes, current ffb implementation leaves much to be desired, both hardware and software wise. Hopefully, flight sims would follow in automotive sims wake and we will see some form of "2.0" FFB implementation.

Edited September 28, 2021 by The LT

[speed-of-heat]

the length of your stick is likely to be something like 15-20 cm, unless you are using an extension...  mechanically that stick is 1/3 to 1/4 the length of the actual stick; then you need to accommodate the changes  in deflection for a mechanically bigger lever... 

Edited September 28, 2021 by speed-of-heat

[DD_Fenrir]

1 hour ago, The LT said:

Real aircraft has forces acting on the control stick.

 

True.

 

 

1 hour ago, The LT said:

Spring loaded sticks lack those forces near the center.

 

Depends... not a blanket correct statement.

 

 

1 hour ago, The LT said:

That is the problem with "twitchiness". Using curves does not solve it. 

 

Wrong. Twitchiness is a direct correlation between stick angle and stick physical stick displacement. The longer your control column the greater displacement you get for each angle of travel. It's simple geometry. The stick in a real warbird could have a control column with a moment of a metre; this will displace 1.75cm for every degree. A desktop joystick controller of only 25cm will displace 4.4mm in the same angle. Ergo if you try to replicate a flight control input that would require 1mm of movement in the real aircraft you are obliged to make a correction almost 4 x smaller.

 

If you are using a desktop mounted joystick without extensions and a linear 1:1 profile you are making the task of controlling your virtual aircraft HARDER than it is in real life.

 

 

1 hour ago, The LT said:

It just reduces your control precision even further on deflections further from the center. Saturation is even worse.

 

On aircraft like the Mustang and P-47 with very linear elevator response across the speed range, you are correct; you rob Peter to pay Paul, sacrificing fine control at towards the limits for more refined control around your trim neutral position. As such I recommend using as little curvature as you can cope with because it will rob you of precision when riding the critical AoA during a dogfight.

 

On aircraft like the Spitfire and Mosquito however, things are very different. Only a tiny portion of the entire elevator throw is actual useful in-flight; they are in some respect, over elevatored, you never use anywhere near the full travel of the elevator during flight unless you want to break the aeroplane. My control curves do what they can to replicate prototypical (and useful) stick displacements whilst still providing access to the full elevator throw for on the ground or ultra-slow speed manoeuvres.

 

So drop the condescension mate. Whilst I share some of your opinions on FFB sticks and their more accurate portrayal of stick forces during flight, you are barking up the wrong tree - the issue isn't spring tension or FFB stick; it's the massive mis-match between the geometry of the prototype control columns and the average PC sim game controller hardware. 

 

@Basco1 I don't know what your experience of FFB has come from, but I find it hugely useful; varying stick tension with airload, the buffet associated with the turbulent airflow as you approach critical AoA, these are feedback devices that real pilots rely on and, yes, whilst a couple of 12V motors and some electronics will only ever be something of a pastiche to the real loads that can be sensed, I personally find something, however artificial, better than nothing, particularly in DCS.

 

 

[The LT]

1 minute ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

True.

 

 

 

Depends... not a blanket correct statement.

 

 

 

Wrong. Twitchiness is a direct correlation between stick angle and stick physical stick displacement. The longer your control column the greater displacement you get for each angle of travel. It's simple geometry. The stick in a real warbird could have a control column with a moment of a metre; this will displace 1.75cm for every degree. A desktop joystick controller of only 25cm will displace 4.4mm in the same angle. Ergo if you try to replicate a flight control input that would require 1mm of movement in the real aircraft you are obliged to make a correction almost 4 x smaller.

 

If you are using a desktop mounted joystick without extensions and a linear 1:1 profile you are making the task of controlling your virtual aircraft HARDER than it is in real life.

 

 

 

On aircraft like the Mustang and P-47 with very linear elevator response across the speed range, you are correct; you rob Peter to pay Paul, sacrificing fine control at towards the limits for more refined control around your trim neutral position. As such I recommend using as little curvature as you can cope with because it will rob you of precision when riding the critical AoA during a dogfight.

 

On aircraft like the Spitfire and Mosquito however, things are very different. Only a tiny portion of the entire elevator throw is actual useful in-flight; they are in some respect, over elevatored, you never use anywhere near the full travel of the elevator during flight unless you want to break the aeroplane. My control curves do what they can to replicate prototypical (and useful) stick displacements whilst still providing access to the full elevator throw for on the ground or ultra-slow speed manoeuvres.

 

So drop the condescension mate. Whilst I share some of your opinions on FFB sticks and their more accurate portrayal of stick forces during flight, you are barking up the wrong tree - the issue isn't spring tension or FFB stick; it's the massive mis-match between the geometry of the prototype control columns and the average PC sim game controller hardware. 

 

@Basco1 I don't know what your experience of FFB has come from, but I find it hugely useful; varying stick tension with airload, the buffet associated with the turbulent airflow as you approach critical AoA, these are feedback devices that real pilots rely on and, yes, whilst a couple of 12V motors and some electronics will only ever be something of a pastiche to the real loads that can be sensed, I personally find something, however artificial, better than nothing, particularly in DCS.

 

 

There is no condescension at all, just discussion.

 

I insist that the issue is spring tension. Show me a joystick which is dampened enough in the near-neutral position to allow for precise control. I haven't seen any. I've also done quite a few mods and customizations to my flight controls, still, the issue of weightless center remains.

I've also had lengthy discussions with a real aerobatics pilot who is an avid sim enthusiast about this recently and the verdict was that lack of near-neutral loading on spring-loaded sticks is what makes the aircraft twitchy and over-sensitive and curves/sat isn't the solution to the problem, it's a workaround.

Again: there is no problem replicating the stick geometrically. You can replicate the throws, but you won't solve the main issue. I had a few BRD-N floor mounted joysticks. One of them had dampers and very stiff springs (12kg+ of force on full deflection). The problem of center being "empty" remains. Only FFB sticks can solve it. Once you have the stick properly loaded in neutral in flight - you won't need curves or sat.

[speed-of-heat]

Archimedes would beg to differ… but yes it’s a work around

Your answer of do nothing is just as flawed

Edited September 28, 2021 by speed-of-heat

[The LT]

Archimedes would beg to differ… but yes it’s a work around
Your answer of do nothing is just as flawed

Do nothing? As in "don't touch the curves"?

[speed-of-heat]

yes, you are making life harder mechanically, you have physically less precision 

[The LT]

Just now, speed-of-heat said:

yes, you are making life harder mechanically, you have physically less precision 

I've experimented a lot with stick extensions/floor sticks and had some very long extensions in the past. A human hand is a very precise instrument. My experiments showed that you get significantly diminished returns after 15cm. I currently fly the mozzie on a mongoos CM2 with a curved 20cm extension and it's as precise as my BRD-N floor stick which is almos twice the height and has much more stick travel. Excessively long stick travel introduces another set of problems for fighter aircraft.

No curves doesn't necessarily make life harder for everyone, yet it avoids the bad habits which might develop from use of curves. I realize that sim flight controls are one big compromise.

[speed-of-heat]

not getting anywhere; you have a position that works for you i have one that works for me, the best advice for anyone is to try both approaches and see what works for them 

 

I just noticed that you are using an extension, so yes that will be a factor ...  in your experience

Edited September 28, 2021 by speed-of-heat