Horizontal Stabilizer Deflection Rate versus Airspeed Pitch Control Curve

[=475FG= Dawger]

In order to assist in setting up F-5E pitch control, I would like an additional Pitch Axis Curve that allows the user to set horizontal stabilizer(HSTAB) maximum deflection rate in hundredths of degrees per second versus KIAS (Knots Indicated Airspeed).

This would allow the end user to be able to better overcome the limitations of PC simulation without the benefit of a force feedback system.

Of course, such a curve should not have the capacity to override existing maximum maximum deflection rates. Rather it would enable the user to slow down HSTAB deflection rates to better fit the limitations of a particular pitch control hardware setup.

Thanks in advance.

[Bucic]

So pretty much Pitch Axis Maximum Rate setting that is a function of airspeed, where user the user customizes the maximum value for given airspeed range? The dev won't like that second part, that's for sure

Axis Maximum Rate that is a constant rate limit is what has been successfully used in Assetto Corsa, allowing for control of a car in full realism mode using a poor controller. Along with a set of additional settings aimed at the same - overcoming the shortcomings of the controller hardware. The full set of those is:

Speed Sensitivity -
Steering Speed -
Steering Filter -
Steering Gamma -

detailed explanation

https://www.assettocorsa.net/forum/index.php?threads/advanced-steering-setup-controller.35589/

It would seem that Speed Sensitivity is what you wish to see for DCS, as an equivalent.

I'm all for it, but even the simpler implementation, I.e. Axis Maximum Rate (Asset to Corsa equivalent: Steering Speed), would have been a powerful tool.

[Hobel]

Am 5.1.2024 um 16:08 schrieb Bucic:

where user the user customizes the maximum value for given airspeed range? The dev won't like that second part, that's for sure

You mean just like the F-4?

 

Enclosed is a report that in the real F5 there was probably a certain resistance at a certain point, that would already help a lot.

[Bucic]

15 minutes ago, Hobel said:

You mean just like the F-4?

 

Enclosed is a report that in the real F5 there was probably a certain resistance at a certain point, that would already help a lot.

Yes, to a large degree.

Missing attachment.

[=475FG= Dawger]

12 hours ago, Hobel said:

You mean just like the F-4?

 

Enclosed is a report that in the real F5 there was probably a certain resistance at a certain point, that would already help a lot.

The F-4 has a maximum force setting in the special options but this is only applicable because the F-4 has the artificial feel system modeled by HB so this is essentially setting the strength of the pilot.

 

In the F-5, there is no apparent limitation on pitch deflection rate no matter the airspeed. One can nearly instantly produce full pitch deflection at any speed, simulating a very powerful hydraulic control system with the ability to overcome any aerodynamic pressure and lacking any sort of mechanism to prevent the pilot from inadvertently destroying his aircraft.

This snip from an old Bureau of Aeronautics Fundamentals of Design of Piloted Aircraft Flight Control Systems put the need for an artificial feel system (force stability augmentation system) in simple terms.

 

null

I'd like an additional curve so I can define my own artificial feel system since the F-5 lacks one currently.

Edited December 1, 2024 by =475FG= Dawger

[Bucic]

@=475FG= Dawger By referring to F-4 I didn't mean any direct similarities in the control systems of those two aircraft, merely the F-4 module developers approach to add extra means facilitating desktop simulator limitations. In RL F-5E control stick deflections are not instantaneous by the mere fact that movement of a human arm isn't instantaneous (something CGI animation guys are struggling to wrap their heads around), let alone holding a piece of metal while acting on springs with additional force. I haven't seen any real world data but I'm also far from assuming infinite control surface hydraulic actuation rate and momentum capabilities.

All that said I don't think anyone is going to provide a ready algorithm for ED here in this topic. I for one am only highlighting the possibilites, based on examples from Assetto Corsa and DCS Black Shark. It's up to ED to acknowledge the need and come up with a solution, as was the case in numerous instances, G-force fatigue being one of many.

From all of the mildoc materials I read F-5E's only means of control input guard rails are literally constant rate springs and a weight bob for the pitch channel.

[=475FG= Dawger]

4 hours ago, Bucic said:

@=475FG= Dawger By referring to F-4 I didn't mean any direct similarities in the control systems of those two aircraft, merely the F-4 module developers approach to add extra means facilitating desktop simulator limitations. In RL F-5E control stick deflections are not instantaneous by the mere fact that movement of a human arm isn't instantaneous (something CGI animation guys are struggling to wrap their heads around), let alone holding a piece of metal while acting on springs with additional force. I haven't seen any real world data but I'm also far from assuming infinite control surface hydraulic actuation rate and momentum capabilities.

All that said I don't think anyone is going to provide a ready algorithm for ED here in this topic. I for one am only highlighting the possibilites, based on examples from Assetto Corsa and DCS Black Shark. It's up to ED to acknowledge the need and come up with a solution, as was the case in numerous instances, G-force fatigue being one of many.

From all of the mildoc materials I read F-5E's only means of control input guard rails are literally constant rate springs and a weight bob for the pitch channel.

I was responding to Hobel saying “Just like the F-4”

HB modeled the artificial feel system in the Phantom and gave players the means to adjust pilot “strength “

ED hasn’t bothered to model the springs and bob weights system in the F-5 which is the major issue with wing break. I’d like to be given the tools to halfway model my own but I will not ever expect it to happen. 

[twistking]

isn't there a setting in the special options that changes the stick response from being linear to considering control forces?

i never played around with it, so i don't know if it does what i think.

[Bucic]

2 hours ago, twistking said:

isn't there a setting in the special options that changes the stick response from being linear to considering control forces?

i never played around with it, so i don't know if it does what i think.

No. The FFB option is for FFB sticks. The two non-FFB options only differ in how they map the real neutral pitch stick position to the neutral position of your joystick. Switch between the two and see what happens.

[twistking]

17 hours ago, Bucic said:

No. The FFB option is for FFB sticks. The two non-FFB options only differ in how they map the real neutral pitch stick position to the neutral position of your joystick. Switch between the two and see what happens.

O. I see. Thanks. I remember testing the two non-FFB options and ending up a little bit confused. Shouldn't physical Joystick in neutral always mean 0 force on the virtual stick? Why would neutral Joystick behave differently? I saw the stick behaving a bit differently, but it did not "click" for me, why the other option existed.

Edited December 4, 2024 by twistking

[Bucic]

57 minutes ago, twistking said:

O. I see. Thanks. I remember testing the two non-FFB options and ending up a little bit confused. Shouldn't physical Joystick in neutral always mean 0 force on the virtual stick? Why would neutral Joystick behave differently? I saw the stick behaving a bit differently, but it did not "click" for me, why the other option existed.

Sticks don't output force. All except some fringe cases output position.

Think about it this way:

linear means proportional

So to use the linear setting with the expectation to get full ranges you'd need to build yourself a stick with matching movement ranges.

 

The Non-Linear seems to be mapping the standard joystick square range to what the F-5E employs in its controls.

Edited December 4, 2024 by Bucic

[twistking]

6 minutes ago, Bucic said:

Sticks don't output force. All except some fringe cases output position.

Think about it this way:

linear means proportional

So to use the linear setting with the expectation to get full ranges you'd need to build yourself a stick with matching movement ranges.

 

The Non-Linear seems to be mapping the standard joystick square range to what the F-5E employs in its controls.

Ok. thanks. I begin to understand. So on linear mode it would -for example- be technically impossible to get the virtual stick full forward when virtual stick (force) neutral is (trimmed) back...

Is there an agreed on opinion on what setting is generally best for the average user with an average joystick?

Edited December 4, 2024 by twistking

[Bucic]

Well, since the Non-Linear maps the input and output so that you can use the full forward range of your joystick to pitch down... I haven't tried the Linear, ever And I think it only makes sense with extended joysticks.