Pitch response in latest update

[TobiasA]

@FusRoPotato

Continuing here and outside of bug reports.

Original thread: 

 

When you pulled back the stick, there was a fast and rapid response. When you did let it go at like 6G, the FLCS corrected to 0.5G before settling on 1G.

This seems to be fixed now. Your last picture shows the old "undershoot" (negative overshoot caused by a too high gain when the setvalue jumps to a lower value) in the red line while the blue line shows a nice clean reaction without overshooting the target setvalue.

 

[FusRoPotato]

That graph isn't in G's, it's in degrees per second. Unfortunately, I didn't record G's back then so I'd have nothing to compare it to.

Furthermore, I honestly don't care anymore. If I'm going to repeatedly see so much careless disregard from our community managers in shutting down topics without even trying to review and understand the content, I don't care. The problem was an obvious mix-up between western and eastern axis conventions in the lua file, verified by setting the largest value of inertia (yaw 85,185 kgm2) to 0 and observing the pitch response spaz out. If the numbers had been in the correct array index, zeroing out that number would have resulted in yaw spaz. Someone recorded a video step by step to verify this and prove it. It was explained carefully and meticulously across two topics, but BN and NL sat on that discussion for months, ignored the content despite posting in it several times, never viewed the footage, ignored the main question, mislabeled it 3 times, engaged with people derailing the discussion, and locked it twice. I... just don't know the words for this?

Honestly, what's the point reporting, scripting, and testing anything in here if they don't care? Doesn't seem to matter if you're an engineer, if you have proof, video, milspecs, or just good reason.

Edited July 27, 2023 by FusRoPotato

[TobiasA]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb FusRoPotato:

That graph isn't in G's, it's in degrees per second. Unfortunately, I didn't record G's back then so I'd have nothing to compare it to.

Furthermore, I honestly don't care anymore. If I'm going to repeatedly see so much careless disregard from our community managers in shutting down topics without even trying to review and understand the content, I don't care. The problem was an obvious mix-up between western and eastern axis orientations in the lua file, verified by setting the largest value of inertia (yaw 85,185 kgm2) to 0 and observing the pitch response spaz out. If the numbers had been in the correct array index, zeroing out that number would have resulted in yaw spaz. Someone recorded a video step by step to verify this and prove it. It was explained carefully and meticulously across two topics, but BN and NL sat on that discussion for months, ignored the content despite posting in it several times, never viewed the footage, ignored the main question, mislabeled it 3 times, engaged with people derailing the discussion, and locked it twice. I... just don't know the words for this?

Honestly, what's the point reporting, scripting, and testing anything in here if they don't care? Doesn't seem to matter if you're an engineer, if you have proof, video, milspecs, or just good reason.

Yes, but degrees in second are more or less G if airspeed doesn't change. 

I don't understand it either, but also do not know what is going on in the code.

I have seen engineers misplacing the XYZ axis on a CNC mill. For unknown reasons. So... I don't want to judge but I am not really satisfied with how the whole thing gets solved. Drop a fix somehow that seems to fix stuff, not mentioning it in the patch notes either. I see some room for improvement there.

[Razor18]

No, degrees in second means G onset. When it stops in its "intended" final position, you have 0 degrees per second, but you still have G, don't you? G is determined by position (degree) of the stabilators, if speed doesn't change.

Edited July 27, 2023 by Razor18

[FusRoPotato]

G is vertical acceleration on the hud. At 0 deg/s, it will be 1 in level flight, 0 in vertical climb. The value of G will vary for every deg/s depending on velocity and angle, so there's not much of an intuitive correlation. 

[Razor18]

Sorry if wrong, but I guessed he means degrees per second movement of the stabilators. If he doesn't, then disregard, sorry.

BTW, did you see this? https://forum.dcs.world/topic/322372-yaw-and-pitch-inertia-values-are-reversed/page/2/#comment-5266042

 

[TobiasA]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Razor18:

Sorry if wrong, but I guessed he means degrees per second movement of the stabilators. If he doesn't, then disregard, sorry.

BTW, did you see this? https://forum.dcs.world/topic/322372-yaw-and-pitch-inertia-values-are-reversed/page/2/#comment-5266042

 

Yes, we did but it is locked so this thread exists to discuss the change in pitch response.

However, I am still wondering about the inertia values and I would appreciate it if some of the flight model devs could take a look...

[Top Jockey]

9 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

That graph isn't in G's, it's in degrees per second. Unfortunately, I didn't record G's back then so I'd have nothing to compare it to.

Furthermore, I honestly don't care anymore. If I'm going to repeatedly see so much careless disregard from our community managers in shutting down topics without even trying to review and understand the content, I don't care. The problem was an obvious mix-up between western and eastern axis conventions in the lua file, verified by setting the largest value of inertia (yaw 85,185 kgm2) to 0 and observing the pitch response spaz out. If the numbers had been in the correct array index, zeroing out that number would have resulted in yaw spaz. Someone recorded a video step by step to verify this and prove it. It was explained carefully and meticulously across two topics, but BN and NL sat on that discussion for months, ignored the content despite posting in it several times, never viewed the footage, ignored the main question, mislabeled it 3 times, engaged with people derailing the discussion, and locked it twice. I... just don't know the words for this?

Honestly, what's the point reporting, scripting, and testing anything in here if they don't care? Doesn't seem to matter if you're an engineer, if you have proof, video, milspecs, or just good reason.

 

 

Yeps, also had the same experience related to other stuf - AIM-9 spot / scan function ... thread deleted, and to this day no developments on that matter.

[NineLine]

9 hours ago, FusRoPotato said:

but BN and NL sat on that discussion for months, ignored the content despite posting in it several times

This is not helpful when in fact I gave you an answer from the FM dev in that thread. 

Suggesting we ignored you when we gave you an answer, even if it's not the answer you were hoping for, is simply not fair. 

I am going to close this thread now as well because it's going to just be complaining about something we have already answered.

19 minutes ago, Top Jockey said:

 

Yeps, also had the same experience related to other stuf - AIM-9 spot / scan function ... thread deleted, and to this day no developments on that matter.

Threads are not deleted/hidden unless they break the rules. It's possible it was merged into an existing thread.  

Again, this is why this thread is now being locked as it's not about the Viper or bugs as much as it's a commentary on moderation. Please use the appropriate method of communication for such issues, not the Viper forum. 

Thanks. 

34 minutes ago, TobiasA said:

However, I am still wondering about the inertia values and I would appreciate it if some of the flight model devs could take a look...

Sorry your question was lost in this, I will flag with the FM dev.