Linear control Special option

[Knock-Knock]

With the F-5E we get to choose between a linear and none-linear control option in 'Specials'.

I use a extended center mounted stick (20cm extension), and that doesnt feel to good with the F-16's current deadzones in both pitch and roll, plus none-linear curve. I would really like to see a Linear option without deadzone. Any chance?

[Falconeer]

Why not change the axes in the options menu?

[Noctrach]

Is there any chance of ED giving the option to have an input curve without the simulated force sensing deadzones (breakout force) in the future?
It would really make this module much more enjoyable to fly for those of us with traditional sticks.

Ideally even a linear curve instead of the force sensing one.

I get that you want to simulate the real jet but the effect on mainstream simulation hardware is very much the opposite, making a fighter with a reputation for being nimble and intuitive feel rather sluggish and "fly by vote".

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

14 hours ago, Noctrach said:

I get that you want to simulate the real jet but the effect on mainstream simulation hardware is very much the opposite

Very understandable but that would also set a precedent: are people going to ask next for the MiG-29 to work better with shorter travel desktop sticks?
I think it would require a very significant rewrite of the flight model...

[Noctrach]

7 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Very understandable but that would also set a precedent: are people going to ask next for the MiG-29 to work better with shorter travel desktop sticks?
I think it would require a very significant rewrite of the flight model...

Not really, the only thing needed is the optional removal of the built-in deadzone. It does not affect the flight model in any way because there is no input sent to the FLCS inside this deadzone.

This deadzone is the result of the breakout force needed for the real Viper to prevent unintentional inputs. It doesn't translate at all to traditional, movable sticks. If you were to have a 10cm extension on your joystick your first 2-ish cm of travel do not translate to any input.

For all other flight models, the deadzone is 0 by default, so there is already an easy answer to make them work better with all sorts of flightsticks: Apply an input curve and deadzone to your liking. The problem is that this is something ED hardcoded internally, I'm asking an option to make this product to be compatible with the vast majority of hardware out there.

Edited December 1, 2021 by Noctrach

[darkman222]

I think there are always compromises being made with PC input devices. So you might realize for example on the YAK52 that the stick travel is not linear compared to what your physical input does. It also has a curve applied to it. You can see that if you move your physical stick and watch what the virtual stick does. No big deal for me. This behavior is much more exaggerated in MSFS2020 for instance where the last 20 % of input just really kick in.

I already had the idea for the linear F16 stick curves as option, and posted in the "input" section. But I think its really obvious that if you would follow that approach to recreate the original input curve, the F16 is the perfect aircraft for that.

So what I did to counter that using an input curve of -20 in the DCS inputs menu, which kind of smoothes it out to a more linear experience. I feel very comfortable with it now, using a traditional stick. I am fine with it either way. But I also would not be disappointed on the other hand if we got that option you ask for at some day.

Edited December 2, 2021 by darkman222

[Deano87]

Most people I fly with who fly using a moving stick (warthog or cougar) for the F-16 use the -20 curve as well with good success.

[wowbagger]

On 12/2/2021 at 3:22 PM, darkman222 said:

So what I did to counter that using an input curve of -20 in the DCS inputs menu, which kind of smoothes it out to a more linear experience.

 

+1

But I think having an optional input curve for better use with non-force sensing sticks is completely reasonable and makes all the sense in the world.

[Noctrach]

Thanks for the replies, but I feel people are putting primary focus on the least important (nice to have) bit of the request. I dont mind non-linear curves if that represents the real jet better.

My primary request is the option to disable the internal deadzone, as you cannot currently personalize this for your hardware. (You can't apply "negative deadzone") This would allow people across the entire hardware spectrum to have an input setup that works for them.

The current situation is rather detrimental to the experience for users with traditional joysticks. Especially so if those have an extension.

 

[darkman222]

Yes you are right. I just talked about the non-linear fly by wire curve. I just did not realize that there is a deadzone also being applied to the F16 input. I am mostly doing dogfighting. So I might not have run into any issues by that. When would I realize it except when air to air refueling or doing a very very precise landing?

Edited December 5, 2021 by darkman222

[Frederf]

The input signal to response is part of the FLCS code itself internal to the airplane. The idea is that because the SSC is a force transducer sensor some breakout force before anything happens makes sense. Otherwise the lightest touch on the stick (or any miscalibration or signal noise) would be providing input further down the logical path. ED is faithfully recreating the FLCS laws of the real airplane.

However almost none of us customers have physical controller hardware that mimics the genuine SSC in this way. Most have displacement (not force) as the driver of the signal which comes with its own mechanical breakout force requirement plus we always have the option to add additional deadzone in options. I agree that viewed holistically the ability to alter the FLCS laws to remove this breakout part of the response function and replace it with any amount of deadzone would more faithfully recreate the control experience.

In the absence of a first party modification it's theoretically possible to create your "negative deadzone" with the appropriate joystick programming software. I don't know if TARGET has the fine control needed but a custom curve where 0=0 and the smallest deflection resulted in a large jump in output (to the FLCS breakout threshold) would effectively erase the breakout part of the FLCS response.

[SCPanda]

I use the FSSB R3L (aka the force sensing stick base like the real F-16). With 6.15 lbs force setting in pitch and 3.25 force setting in roll, the default curve in DCS still feels very sluggish and unresponsive to me compare to other jets in DCS. In the other sim (BMS), the jet feels much more responsive and alive. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 12/9/2021 at 10:07 AM, SCPanda said:

With 6.15 lbs force setting in pitch and 3.25 force setting in roll, the default curve in DCS still feels very sluggish and unresponsive to me

It's fascinating how different people's experiences are, even when in the exact same situation and - in this case - using the exact same hardware.

I started with low force inputs such as yours at first as well, which was very comfortable for me (and very responsive at that) for normal flying, but I ran into issues when very fine control was needed (aerial gunnery and keeping the nose stable while aerobreaking on landing for example): I was consistently overcompensating, causing very a jittery experience.
I changed the force settings several times these past few months. Indeed, I found it quite difficult to find a setting that works well in every possible situation (normal flying operations, IFR, A/A, A/G), but I'm quite happy with the current 8.05 lbs in pitch and 4.06 lbs in roll (with 130% NASA in pitch and 140% in roll).
I find it quite a bit easier to get used to using more force rather than less force, and it benefits fine control  

[SCPanda]

On 12/11/2021 at 7:24 AM, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

It's fascinating how different people's experiences are, even when in the exact same situation and - in this case - using the exact same hardware.

I started with low force inputs such as yours at first as well, which was very comfortable for me (and very responsive at that) for normal flying, but I ran into issues when very fine control was needed (aerial gunnery and keeping the nose stable while aerobreaking on landing for example): I was consistently overcompensating, causing very a jittery experience.
I changed the force settings several times these past few months. Indeed, I found it quite difficult to find a setting that works well in every possible situation (normal flying operations, IFR, A/A, A/G), but I'm quite happy with the current 8.05 lbs in pitch and 4.06 lbs in roll (with 130% NASA in pitch and 140% in roll).
I find it quite a bit easier to get used to using more force rather than less force, and it benefits fine control  

I guess the force setting is subject to musele memory, which is very personal. But the sensitivity issue I am having in DCS is due to the default curve of the FLCS ED implemented in game. What I mean is regardless of what our max force settings are, the required force input in percentage of your max force setting to achieve let's say certain degrees per second of roll or pitch is relatively high compared to another F-16 sim (which I read they did a great job replicating the real authentic FLCS curve). For example, maybe I want to do 180 degrees/second roll to the right, I have to apply maybe 2.7 lbs force out of 3.25 lbs (my setting) to my stick's roll axis to achieve that in DCS, but in the other F-16 sim, I felt I only have to apply maybe 2 lbs of force out of 3.25 lbs. So if you understood my poor explanation so far (apologize in advance), the issue I am having is with the curve of the DCS F-16's FLCS. Maybe you should try flying the F-16 in the other F-16 sim with your current force setting, I promise you will find the jet to be much more responsive and alive, which I personally prefer and is exactly how it should be from what I heard about F-16's real force sensing stick IRL, it's very sensitive. Thx! 

Edited December 13, 2021 by SCPanda

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Perhaps DCS's implementation of the FLCS will get tuned a bit more at some point. I get what you're saying, though. But could that be perhaps due to different tapes of software used?

In the end, required force input is just a matter of changing a few lines in the software, in Realsimulator's software and I bet also in the real jet. We know for example that export versions of the F-18 can use vastly different flight controls (resulting in for example different AoA limits), simply due to software changes requested by the customer (Finland is a prime example).

[GrislyAccord]

I came here to with the same question. I've always loved the F-16...but absolutely hate the way it feels in DCS. It's like flying through amber, particularly compared to an aircraft like the F5, which is incredibly responsive and just a joy to fly. I understand they're trying to simulate a pressure sensitive stick and fly-by-wire system, but it feels more like a jumbo jet than a super-responsive fighter.

[CobaltUK]

I think it was this topic that had me experiment a few weeks ago. Had long found the roll very sluggish compared to what i was used to elsewhere and what i supposed from watching RL video action that it ought to be. A few clicks in settings gave me 230 deg/sec (according to Tacview) which i was more happy with. A small curve prior to ramp preventing twitchy manoeuvring. Cougar Hotas 

[SCPanda]

On 1/5/2022 at 12:41 AM, GrislyAccord said:

I came here to with the same question. I've always loved the F-16...but absolutely hate the way it feels in DCS. It's like flying through amber, particularly compared to an aircraft like the F5, which is incredibly responsive and just a joy to fly. I understand they're trying to simulate a pressure sensitive stick and fly-by-wire system, but it feels more like a jumbo jet than a super-responsive fighter.

Yeah, the problem is, even for users like me who own a force sensing stick and use low force settings, the jet still feels like a bus and very unresponsive.

Edited January 10, 2022 by SCPanda

[Wing]

Any response from ED with this?

Have heard from numerous players attempting to come over from "the other sim", to the DCS Viper... only to see how the stick is feeling, then saying the heck with it.

I believe this is one of those serious issues that ED should really look into sooner than later, in regards to players settings. Majority of us do not have force sensing flight sticks - so controls feel way off. A simple settings ticker for "replicate FSS ON/OFF" would go a long way for this module.

[Strong05]

Would love to see this addressed.  Even after the flight model update yesterday the F-16 does not feel responsive with default curves.  Very easy to get into PIO while formation flying.  Not natural at all compared to the F-18.

[Noctrach]

@BIGNEWY Would it be possible to get an ED indication on whether or not this is in the cards? It seems to be a very minor fix with huge QoL impact for those of us without FSSB joysticks.

We're not asking for a rework of the internal response curves, merely an option to remove the breakout force deadzone, similarly to what exists in the helicopter module settings for the different trimmer modes. This would make the Viper much more responsive to fly for the vast majority of us that uses a traditional joystick, where breakout force is already covered by mechanical spring force. This also makes the module much more compatible with extended stick setups.

 

[Noctrach]

On 3/19/2022 at 9:22 AM, Noctrach said:

@BIGNEWY Would it be possible to get an ED indication on whether or not this is in the cards? It seems to be a very minor fix with huge QoL impact for those of us without FSSB joysticks.

We're not asking for a rework of the internal response curves, merely an option to remove the breakout force deadzone, similarly to what exists in the helicopter module settings for the different trimmer modes. This would make the Viper much more responsive to fly for the vast majority of us that uses a traditional joystick, where breakout force is already covered by mechanical spring force. This also makes the module much more compatible with extended stick setups.

 

Or @NineLine, whomever would be able to respond to or tag this thread

[Knock-Knock]

Please @NineLine @BIGNEWY, any word on this?

I made a similar request back in June 2021, and I can see there are others besides this thread, but they have all gone unanswered.