Severe adverse yaw: Unique characteristic the F1?

[Panthir]

2 hours ago, Nealius said:

I did no such thing. This is a straw man fallacy. If you're going to present a counter argument, do not make baseless claims.

Yes, and I acknowledged that mistake later. Not to mention, it is a very superficial mistake when contextually it was known that we were talking about spoilers. Attacking someone's entire argument because they mixed up a term is invalid. 

Again, I started this thread because the F1 did not fit a set pattern against other modules and I wanted to learn:

1. Is it accurate?

NO, mate. I confirm that the flight model is not accurate. It was not so easy to force F-1 to enter in an adverse yaw, as you were getting very gentle signs (undesired opposite rolls) to avoid it. It was more sensitive to enter with assymetry loads. But what I see in DCS, is a little bit far from reality.

2. If so, why?

It needs a lot of work and I am sure that they will do their best to match it.

THIS WAS CLEARLY STATED IN MY OP.

I AM TIRED OF DEALING WITH THESE STRAW MAN FALLACIES AND AD HOMINEMS.

I OPENED THIS THREAD TO LEARN, AND INSTEAD GET THIS BULL<profanity>.

GOOD DAY.

 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Panthir

[Fromthedeep]

 

22 minutes ago, Hiob said:

Just curious.

Or is it when somebody disagrees with you?

No, that's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you're trying to argue your point and win the debate by demonstrating some kind of real or perceived fault in your opponent's character. So when you and other people are trying to discredit the OP and imply that the point they are raising must come from a lack of knowledge, you're arguing from a fallacious point. Realizing this and calling out destructive behaviour that destroys the debate is not ad hominem, it cannot be by definition, because that's not part of debate, it's a something that's noted about the nature of the debate itself.

 

Think about it like this: if there's a debate being held in an open area and when a huge rainstorm makes it impossible to pretty much do anything, if a participant says that 'guys, we cannot continue in these conditions', it doesn't mean they concede their position, or that what they say is an argument within the context of the debate. It's a meta statement about the conditions of the debate itself. 

 

The reasonable approach here would be to describe in general terms what adverse yaw is, what causes in normal conditions, what sort of design decisions are present on the F1 and then quantifying how much adverse yaw should be caused based on the characteristics of the aircraft, how much is being shown in game and comparing the two. Obviously this requires  very robust knowledge, so this thread never really got over the first step; describing what adverse yaw is and what causes it. That's not the question, the question is how much should the F1 display.

 

The other possible way to tackle this problem is to have an SME, who has flown the aircraft comment on the behaviour.

 

edit: typos, grammatical mistakes

Edited August 12, 2022 by Fromthedeep

[sedenion]

2 hours ago, Nealius said:

I AM TIRED OF DEALING WITH THESE STRAW MAN FALLACIES AND AD HOMINEMS.

And, that is your mission if you accept it, keeping calm and staying focused in a toxic environment where everybody makes statements based on beliefs with "I have a pilot license" argument of authority.

[Hiob]

20 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

No, that's not an ad hominem. Ad hominem is when you're trying to argue your point and win the debate by demonstrating some kind of real or perceived fault in your opponent's character. So when you and other people are trying to discredit the OP and imply that the point they are raising must come from a lack of knowledge, you're arguing from a fallacious point. Realizing this and calling out destructive behaviour that destroys the debate is not ad hominem, it cannot be by definition, because that's not part of debate, it's a something that's noted about the nature of the debate itself.

Anybody who has spend enough time here is aware, that, most of the time, people with nothing but theoretical knowledge are speculating about (perceived) issues. And more often then not, they happen to disagree at some point or another. And sometimes it becomes emotional. Exaggerated through the fact, that this is just a text based forum, and not a personal chat.

The thing is, the OP has a tendency of attacking people on a personal basis if they don't follow his arguments or have different opinions. I just found it funny, that he of all people is complaining about ad hominem arguments. That's all.

Irony may be a form of micro aggression, I know. Never claimed that I am flawless.....

[sedenion]

30 minutes ago, Fromthedeep said:

he reasonable approach here would be to describe in general terms what adverse yaw is, what causes in normal conditions, what sort of design decisions are present on the F1 and then quantifying how much adverse yaw should be caused based on the characteristics of the aircraft, how much is being shown in game and comparing the two. Obviously this requires a very robust knowledge, so this threat never really got over the first step; describing what adverse yaw is and what causes it. That's not the question, the question is how much should the F1 display.

The other possible way to tackle this problem is to have an SME, who has flown the aircraft comment on the behaviour.

That's the problem (and solution). Actually, even once you perfectly understands why and how adverse yaw happen, once you perfectly undstand the role of each control surface, even if you perfectly understand fuild dynamics, one cannot really predict or project exactly what is actully the aircraft behaviors with such theoretical data, and even less considering the aircraft does have fligt control damping and assistances systems.
There is a point where one should be able to say "Well, I DON'T KNOW". One can have opinions, making conjectures, and discussion "hey I think this, because of that", etc. but you have to admit that one don't know. The man who piloted the aircraft know, the engineers that worked on the aircraft design known, but, you, me, and almost everybody here simply don't know.

Edited August 12, 2022 by sedenion

[sedenion]

11 minutes ago, Hiob said:

The thing is, the OP has a tendency of attacking people on a personal basis if they don't follow his arguments or have different opinions. I just found it funny, that he of all people is complaining about ad hominem arguments. That's all.

The OP is dealing with a toxic environment, which I personally perfectly identified, where, the goal is not to go forward together resolving a question, but, proving ourself and to others that one know better than others, and sometimes, whith very poors arguments but an huge self-confidence. The problem is here: The OP wants to solve a problem "together" while many others are here to tell everybody how the OP is fool and how they are the best.

[Hiob]

3 minutes ago, sedenion said:

The OP is dealing with a toxic environment, which I personally perfectly identified, where, the goal is not to go forward together resolving a question, but, proving ourself and to others that one know better than others, and sometimes, whith very poors arguments but an huge self-confidence. The problem is here: The OP wants to solve a problem "together" while many others are here to tell everybody how the OP is fool and how they are the best.

He is the one, who makes it toxic in the first place. I wouldn’t have engaged in the issue if it wasn’t for the fact, that this is a repeating pattern in different threads. OP has opinions, which is fine, occasionally I (and others perhaps) find his opinions wrong which is an opinion on its own. Nothing wrong with it, is it. But didn‘t accuse him of having any kind of complexes, did I. I just happen to react with a little bit of irony, when he started lecturing me on very basic stuff.

See, I don’t perceive the forum in general as very toxic environment. Quite the opposite actually. Most of the time it is very friendly and helpful place. There are certain topics of course, that are more difficult than others and I think we all know which kind they are.

Thing is, if someone perceive it a very toxic environment in general (if that is the case), one need to ask, if yelling and attacking people (I mean directly personally attacking - not disagreeing) may be the root cause for it.

[sedenion]

2 minutes ago, Hiob said:

He is the one, who makes it toxic in the first place.

No.

5 minutes ago, Hiob said:

I wouldn’t have engaged in the issue if it wasn’t for the fact, that this is a repeating pattern in different threads.

Its problem is a lack of practice on how to deal witch such situation, which leads to increasing problems and indeed, repeating patterns: same causes, same effects, same results. Its main mistake, I think, is that he try to make other people to understand how they uses falacy logic (which they obviously does, like everybody) instead of hitting its chest while screaming in order to communicate at the same level of its interlocutor, then rasing the debate to another level.

3 minutes ago, Hiob said:

See, I don’t perceive the forum in general as very toxic environment.

It clearly does in some circumstances, because many people here, are very prompt to adopt professor or autoriary position to correct others, in order not to restore the truth but rather to humiliate or dominate.

[Hiob]

6 minutes ago, sedenion said:

No.

We happen to disagree on that.

[sedenion]

5 minutes ago, Hiob said:

We happen to disagree on that.

And that's perfectly ok. I think we cannot not settle the debate this time... lets conclude that everybody have its part of "unadapted behavior" to solve.

[jaguara5]

Guys, in case you have missed it,  we have input fron a real F1 pilot in this thread. See Panthir's post, his answer is written inside the quoted text.

[Maxthrust]

On 8/12/2022 at 9:07 AM, jaguara5 said:

Guys, in case you have missed it,  we have input fron a real F1 pilot in this thread. See Panthir's post, his answer is written inside the quoted text.

Thanks for this, those are the only posts we should be reading. 
 

The mirage flies A-OK btw. Source: myself I studied fluid dynamics some decades ago, got a D and passed. 

[Nealius]

With the latest FM updates the severe adverse yaw and wobbly nose when leveling out from rolls or sharp turns is gone. She's a joy to fly now 

[hanypopoo]

sidewinders feels like 2000lbs, when you fire one and keep the other one very hard to control and turn fight 

[Nealius]

Yeah that still feels a bit off, but not quite as bad as I remembered it in the very first patch. I'm sure they'll tune it out eventually. 

Correction, yeah there is a lot of drag from a single wingtip missile. Worse than a 1,000lb bomb on one wing in the Harrier.

Edited September 18, 2022 by Nealius

[hanypopoo]

ughhh this single tip missile is getting on my nerves!! u cant even dog fighht!!