Need to mitigate lack of AoA or G meter/force feedback

[2circle]

Coming from the F-18C, I was looking forward to the simplicity of the warbirds but am instead confounded by how difficult these airplanes are to fly.  I started with the P-51 but found the accelerated stall characteristics made it essentially unusable for me coming from a fly by wire world where I can max perform the jet by pulling the stick into my lap knowing the flight control software will keep me from stalling or departing controlled flight.  What would be really nice would be an indicator (like the controls indicator) that the pilot can bring up that somehow shows how close the pilot is to max performing.  An indication of G, or AoA would be a start since without seat-of-the-pants feel it's impossible to pick up on the rumble that usually precedes a stall or know how hard one is pulling G's.  Even better would be a real time diagram indicating where the airplane is with respect to speed (horizontal axis) and turn rate (vertical axis) with a max performance curve superimposed.  This would allow the pilot to know with confidence whether he can pull harder or needs to let off rather than finding out by having the airplane depart controlled flight.  Chuck Yeager's Air Combat, a sim I played in the 90's, had this feature and it was incredibly useful and taught me a lot about how to max perform an aircraft.

[razo+r]

I strongly dislike your wish to implement some real time performance indicators.

You have plenty of indicators in the game that will tell you when you are about to approach a stall. And if you don't yank on the stick like you are used to, you will even experience most of them, including the buffeting. You have the airspeed to work with, your attitude, the responses of the aircraft to your input, your input itself and in case of the P-51, even a G-load indicator and it produces a sound that depends on your AoA.

So I don't really see the need to implement those indicators that will tell you how exact you are flying to peak performance. Learn to read the existing signs, especially if you make the transition from FBW protected jets to Warbirds. 

For example, speed. Appart from looking at the airspeed gauge, you will also be able to judge it by looking out the window. Where's your nose pointing at and where is your aircraft flying towards, how much power is set and most importantly, how much deflection do you apply on the stick and how much of a change in attitude does your aircraft make? It will take some time to learn but eventually, you'll be able to quite accurately guess your speed by simply looking outside, even without diagrams.

Same goes for turning/stalling. With sufficient experience you will pretty much exactly know where you are standing and how much more you can pull before the aircraft departs. You cannot expect to know all these limitations after lets say 5 hours after coming from FBW jets.

So in the end, all you need to confidently fight in a Warbird is knowledge and experience, not diagrams. Even in a computer simulation/game, there are currently plenty of indicators showing where you are standing in terms of aircraft performance. You just need to be willing to read those indications.

Edited August 27, 2023 by razo+r

[GGTharos]

43 minutes ago, 2circle said:

An indication of G, or AoA would be a start since without seat-of-the-pants feel it's impossible to pick up on the rumble that usually precedes a stall or know how hard one is pulling G's. 

There are plenty of in-game indicators that you can use already:  Cockpit shake, rumble sound etc.   You could turn up your subwoofer or buy a buttkicker etc.   You could (should) also fly handling characteristics sorties and calibrate yourself to understand and notice these things.

[kablamoman]

Don't mean to pile on, but hopping on the bandwagon to express much the same:

The fun of flying the warbirds is largely because they're not fly-by-wire and don't have the envelope protections you may have been accustomed to on the more modern aircraft.

To your point, we are indeed missing certain feedback indicators that contribute to your sensory awareness in real life: Things like the feel of G on the body and the forces required to move control columns to generate that acceleration, but you can get by in the sim just fine without them by learning to use other performance indicators. Things like the audible sound of the slipstream at high speeds, mushy control response at low speeds and/or high altitudes, the camera shake with stall buffeting, the squeal of the p51 gun ports at high AoA, or even just the sense that your wing is starting to drop without you commanding it. All the warbird afficionados in the sim are well-practiced at this and can vouch that it works just fine (while still wishing they had industrial strength force feedback, and hydraulic motion rigs).

One thing I would suggest, which I think would really help just about anybody trying to fly the warbirds, is to set some stick and rudder sensitivity curves in your axis assignments. To put it into perspective a bit, I've flown a range of aircraft in real life: From small, piston singles, to mid and large-sized turbo props and jets, all requiring significantly different control actuation forces. I have a pretty nice VKB stick at home, with a 200mm extension, using the strongest springs, but even using that it's hard to get close to the feeling of even a small single piston, especially if it's mis-trimmed or pulling G -- this is to say nothing of the 75lbs+ force it can take to pull G in some of these warbirds!

I've found that using curves allows for a bit more finesse with general flying, at least with my setup, as I have a bit more authority in the initial range of stick movement and have to really intentionally work against my hardware's springs to go into the range where I'm starting to make the wings work. With the 200mm extension, I use a 20 curve on X and Y, but with a shorter stick, perhaps a 30 curve would be more appropriate? I use a 30 curve for my rudder axis with a set of excellent Slaw pedals.

All this is to say that you should see if maybe tweaking some of those axis tuning values will work better for you and your hardware.  Good luck!

---

Edit: Just noticed this was in the Spitfire forum and thought it may be worth pointing out I actually use 30 curves across the board (X,Y, and Z) for that module, even with my extension, just because the stick is so sensitive.

Edited August 27, 2023 by kablamoman

[Doughguy]

rule of thumb: cockit is shaking = close to stall.

 it is ok if youre riding her on the stall just dont push her over the edge. stalls come abrubtly!

pull the stick gentle. but you can pull it alot, but do it gradually.

youll get the hang on how much you can pull.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Doughguy

[2circle]

I appreciate the feedback.  I'll note a few things - as a pilot who has done quite a bit of air-to-air maneuvering over the years (although it's been over 15 since my last tactical sortie) - it's impossible to overstate the importance of seat of the pants feels and stick feedback (even the F-18 had an artificial feedback system) to determine how the aircraft is performing.  All I'm suggesting here is that ED make up for this incredibly impactful deficit by giving us other tools with which to work that would improve playability and individual performance.  I guarantee; no one is looking at the ground in the middle of an engagement to help determine speed, nor is anyone listening for the subtle audible noises some described above since the noise of one's own anti-g straining maneuver, sounds of airstream around the canopy, radio comms, guns firing, the ECS pumping air into the cockpit, etc. are way, WAY louder than the subtle noises that could be used in DCS.  All I'm suggesting is some technology/a tool to help bridge the gap.  This would be akin to displaying flight controls, or seeing a close up of the optical landing system in the super carrier module.  For the true "purists" out there, no need to select this option.  We just need to be realistic about the artificial nature of sitting in a chair vs. being in a dynamic cockpit with all sorts of non-audible non-visual cues that simply can not be replicated in a flight simulator (although the developers have gotten very close!).  As a side note, these aspects are so important that there aren't even any simulator events in any phase of training in US Navy flightschool for any aircraft that focus on within visual range maneuvering.  They don't even bother; it's the only training that's done 100% in the jet for the reasons I described above.  

[Cab]

33 minutes ago, 2circle said:

I appreciate the feedback.  I'll note a few things - as a pilot who has done quite a bit of air-to-air maneuvering over the years (although it's been over 15 since my last tactical sortie) - it's impossible to overstate the importance of seat of the pants feels and stick feedback (even the F-18 had an artificial feedback system) to determine how the aircraft is performing.  All I'm suggesting here is that ED make up for this incredibly impactful deficit by giving us other tools with which to work that would improve playability and individual performance.  I guarantee; no one is looking at the ground in the middle of an engagement to help determine speed, nor is anyone listening for the subtle audible noises some described above since the noise of one's own anti-g straining maneuver, sounds of airstream around the canopy, radio comms, guns firing, the ECS pumping air into the cockpit, etc. are way, WAY louder than the subtle noises that could be used in DCS.  All I'm suggesting is some technology/a tool to help bridge the gap.  This would be akin to displaying flight controls, or seeing a close up of the optical landing system in the super carrier module.  For the true "purists" out there, no need to select this option.  We just need to be realistic about the artificial nature of sitting in a chair vs. being in a dynamic cockpit with all sorts of non-audible non-visual cues that simply can not be replicated in a flight simulator (although the developers have gotten very close!).  As a side note, these aspects are so important that there aren't even any simulator events in any phase of training in US Navy flightschool for any aircraft that focus on within visual range maneuvering.  They don't even bother; it's the only training that's done 100% in the jet for the reasons I described above.  

I’m with you, brother. But as you’ve already sampled, the push back will be severe and sustained. After all, even if you have real world fighter experience, there are people here with at least 2 or 3 times as many hours of simulated dogfighting. So, like, they know better. 
 

To quote from Battlestar Galactica regarding your suggestion, “All of this has happened before. All of this will happen again.”

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, Cab said:

I’m with you, brother. But as you’ve already sampled, the push back will be severe and sustained. After all, even if you have real world fighter experience, there are people here with at least 2 or 3 times as many hours of simulated dogfighting. So, like, they know better. 

No need to be snarky, here: What we've had were 4 posters replying in good faith in response to OP's concern with some tips about how they manage to max perform with the warbird modules despite lacking the aforementioned real world sensory cues. We all know it's a sim and that it has limitations, but working around those limitations is also its own set of skills that can be practiced and learned with time.

OP's suggestion of a real time EM plot could be a really cool feature, and I think it would be a neat tool to have when practicing. A major impediment to its implementation might be that pace of development is already pretty glacial, and so it's not likely that we'd ever see it. Not to mention, if it were optional, a drawback may be that it could prevent folks from learning how to use the other cues that are already readily available (which may be necessary if you ever want to play online with other people). Despite protestations, the simple fact remains that players actively use these cues right now, with great success, when flying these modules in the sim.

You could spend a bunch of money and look into getting a fancy Rhino force feedback stick -- maybe that would help -- but short of that, the only solution forthcoming for OP's issue is to practice, and learn how to fly with, and not against, the simisms.

Edited August 28, 2023 by kablamoman

[2circle]

I respect their experience.  As I've stated in some other threads, in some ways, DCS is harder than the real thing (in flight refueling is another example IMO).  But there are ways to bridge the gap that don't detract from the "purists'" ability to make it happen without some optional help, and actually get us closer to being able to perform the aircraft to its max performance.  Until we all have feedback in the stick we're using, or the seat we're sitting in, all we have are visual and audial cues, which unfortunately are not sufficient IMO.

Edited August 28, 2023 by 2circle
wrong word

[Nealius]

Cockpit shaking is not visible in VR, when your head is outside the cockpit padlocked on a bandit. This is where the audible feedback in the F-14's cockpit shake is invaluable, and I wish we had the same in the warbirds. In the Mustang you can somewhat gauge things by the loudness of the screaming gun ports, but at high altitudes where your stick is on a hair trigger the evolution from steady pull to an uncommanded snap roll is measured in millimeters and milliseconds. The "it's not realistic" rebuff is absolutist hogwash, as it's not realistic for us to be unable to feel stick forces or G telling us where we are in the performance envelope. Make it an option in special settings. If you don't like it, don't turn it on. Rebuffing an optional feature like that is gatekeeping: "I learned how to feel my virtual plane so no one should be allowed an easy mode to get up to my level." Get a life.

Edited August 28, 2023 by Nealius

[peachmonkey]

10 hours ago, Nealius said:

Cockpit shaking is not visible in VR, when your head is outside the cockpit padlocked on a bandit. This is where the audible feedback in the F-14's cockpit shake is invaluable, and I wish we had the same in the warbirds. In the Mustang you can somewhat gauge things by the loudness of the screaming gun ports, but at high altitudes where your stick is on a hair trigger the evolution from steady pull to an uncommanded snap roll is measured in millimeters and milliseconds. The "it's not realistic" rebuff is absolutist hogwash, as it's not realistic for us to be unable to feel stick forces or G telling us where we are in the performance envelope. Make it an option in special settings. If you don't like it, don't turn it on. Rebuffing an optional feature like that is gatekeeping: "I learned how to feel my virtual plane so no one should be allowed an easy mode to get up to my level." Get a life.

 

buffeting vibrations are implemented in the telemetry. Bass shakers with Simshaker software will give you the very thing you're talking about.

Add an FFB joystick and now you got them under your butt and in your hand.