Force Feedback Settings Discussion

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, slowmover said:

 

Did you print it yourself? If so, I would print it in a different orientation, so that the layers are vertical (perpendicular to the pitch direction) when mounted. It looks like, it was printed horizontaly. What material did you use (in DIY case)?

[Maksim Savelev]

To HeatBlur

The problem is that this mathematical interpretation of  “rebalancing central position” is only can be applied for the FFB users and when you’re applying this approach to the regular joystick you’re breaking the linkage between pilot and control stick. Basically It replicate hands off flying. It’s like pilot has introduced some force impulse and let the stick go completely removing his hands from the control and now the system “stick-airplane” oscillates completely freely. It’s not a case in a real flying.  Also if Heatblur had enough experience of flying, that “rebalancing” of control center is happening in every warbird as well, even if the elevator or ailerons itself are perfectly balanced by the counter weight. It happens because when you’re maneuvering local AOA on elevator and aileron changes as well which basically moves aerodynamic “center” causing shift of the stick trimmed position. It could be  easily seen especially during snap rolls. And yet it does cost zero troubles for pilots myself including to overcome that and doesn’t produce any oscillation after the breaking maneuver. These effects are more pronounced if you’re flying aircraft with elevator which is unbalanced, meaning the stick will fall forward on the ground with no airflow around it. And yet again- is not a problem or inconvenience in any way.

Also  interesting facts that may affect this “spring weight”oscillation thinking of yours:

On the ground in F-4 stick with 3lbs bob weight doesn’t move forward, because of total resistance in the system (weight of elements, friction, stickiness of grease). All of these are the natural damper.

Maybe, and this is the most important one: Override spring cartridge is positioned that way, that when it’s pulled by bellows it can move stick back just on very limited angle and then it’s only pulling out the spring emulating aerodynamic loads. Think, how you can get any loads on the control higher than bob weights? In your understanding what will happen when  emulated by bellows aerodynamic forces will be higher than the weight of bob weight? Stick will be spring out of the center? You’ve got a reference that during supersonic flight it might required around 60lbs of force to get a 6G turn; let’s say 18lbs or 30lbs (depends on the bob weight) are caused by bob weight, where you’re getting the rest of the load? Exactly it comes from the bellows and it points towards the center. I don’t know, but my guess is the only reason why the spring override cartridge is not perfectly aligned with the pivot point of the bellcrank is to give some space to the spring to be pulled out to compensate the weight of the bob weight. That means when you’re thinking about oscillating weight and spring, you have to be thinking about very limited range of movement, and it will come down almost instantly because of dampening characteristics of the system itself and because the spring cartilage itself has much more of the resistance than inertia of a 3lbs bob weight. Yes 3lbs or 5lbs whichever you have implemented. G factor doesn’t apply here. 
Think this way: McDonalld wanted to make a feel unit mimicking the airflow loads. They have determined specific max load by the spring resistance which caused, due to wide range of speeds  aft CGs and effective stabilator, very light loads at the takeoff and landing speeds and also which is more critical low forces are required to perform high G maneuvering at subsonic region. So they putted bob weight, just to increase these loads for the G maneuvers. That’s it. 
You have written in your manual It was designed around carefully balanced bob weight and a spring. To be honest, when I read this, I thought you will fail to make it right, because you have emphasized wrong point.

Basically I don’t care how did you do all of this “mathematics” because for my FFBeast I can do everything right through the software. But I insist you have to remove this “feature” from using it with the spring joystick.

Yes the other problem is that this “FFB feature “ cannot be switched off for regular joystick. No matter what options are changed in DCS.

[IronMike]

10 minutes ago, Maksim Savelev said:

Basically I don’t care how did you do all of this “mathematics” because for my FFBeast I can do everything right through the software. But I insist you have to remove this “feature” from using it with the spring joystick.

Sorry, but this will not happen. We kindly ask you to spend some time to get used to it please. We had similar blowback from our testers and even SMEs, until they got used to it. Our SMEs agree that it now feels not only closer to the real aircraft, but actually enhances the feel in the sim, it increases the resolution, and it requires you to do more what you do in real life: trim constantly.

@Super Grover will explain in a post more how the trim works (which is a realistic trim feel system for the first time in an end consumer sim, vs a fake trim axis as sim modules commonly offered until now, including us btw).

But we certainly will not re-code our entire input system, we meticulously built over the past 3 years, because some cannot take the time to get used to it beyond flying it for a day, no matter how much you insist, sorry, because there are basic misunderstandings on how the system should work and actually does work in game. 

[Maksim Savelev]

Did you read the part, which describes your possible mistake? If so it’s okay. Why need to recode what haven’t been done right. It’s okay at least we’ve got your position.

[freehand]

" We had similar blowback from our testers and even SMEs, until they got used to it. Our SMEs agree that it now feels not only closer to the real aircraft"

How's that make any sense ?

[Maksim Savelev]

“When you died you feel nothing, but only people around you can feel pain, the same true when you’re dumb” 

I don’t why just remembered a joke and wanted to share

[Super Grover]

2 minutes ago, freehand said:

" We had similar blowback from our testers and even SMEs, until they got used to it. Our SMEs agree that it now feels not only closer to the real aircraft"

How's that make any sense ?

People have prejudices and react allergically to some topics. This is precisely what we can see in this thread.

[freehand]

3 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

People have prejudices and react allergically to some topics. This is precisely what we can see in this thread.

I have no idea what your talking about.

[Hiob]

It's unfortunate though, that this "problem" with spring loaded 'regular' joysticks is brought up in a thread, that is intended to revolve around Force Feedback. Which is a very interesting topic on its own and has potential for a lot of different approaches, settings and problems.

[Phantom12]

My understanding is still that you can turn the whole thing off with the right settings if you so desire. Not sure why its an issue. And like Hiob says its really a separate issue from what we are trying to discuss here.

[Maksim Savelev]

Well it’s all related

[Super Grover]

22 minutes ago, freehand said:

I have no idea what your talking about.

Oh, I'm sorry. I was a bit busy dealing with the fixing, and now, when I read it, it doesn't sound the way I wanted it to sound. What I mean is that some topics are controversial, and sometimes, we may misunderstand how things are simulated because we might be missing the essential details of the implementation. And when we try building the picutre of the systems without those details, that picture may indeed seem wrong. That's why I wanted to thank everyone for participating in this discussion because, by this, you express how important it is for you to have the ultimate realism and the best experience with the module. I just wanted to reassure everyone that we've had the same concerns that you have and that we worked on addressing them from the initial stages of the development.

[Bazz_Mulder]

38 minutes ago, Maksim Savelev said:

“When you died you feel nothing, but only people around you can feel pain, the same true when you’re dumb” 

I don’t why just remembered a joke and wanted to share

Stop being passive-aggressive. You have a different point of view and that's great, but demanding someone else to change his/ because you don't like it is at least immature. And that “joke” is offensive in the context of your posts.

I'm getting used to this new system simulation as Mike said, it's a first in consumer end sim, and I'm starting to get better at it. I encourage you to do the same.

As @Hiob said, this topic is mixing ffb and no-ffb stuff which can be misleading.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Bazz_Mulder

[kablamoman]

 

59 minutes ago, IronMike said:

Sorry, but this will not happen. We kindly ask you to spend some time to get used to it please. We had similar blowback from our testers and even SMEs, until they got used to it. Our SMEs agree that it now feels not only closer to the real aircraft, but actually enhances the feel in the sim, it increases the resolution, and it requires you to do more what you do in real life: trim constantly.

@Super Grover will explain in a post more how the trim works (which is a realistic trim feel system for the first time in an end consumer sim, vs a fake trim axis as sim modules commonly offered until now, including us btw).

But we certainly will not re-code our entire input system, we meticulously built over the past 3 years, because some cannot take the time to get used to it beyond flying it for a day, no matter how much you insist, sorry, because there are basic misunderstandings on how the system should work and actually does work in game. 

I would say that the first instincts of your SMEs were correct in this instance, before "they got used to it" being modelled in this fashion.

I do not find myself trimming any more for this module than I would have done in any other non-FBW module. Nor do I have a problem with the bobweight and bellows system being modelled. None of that is the problem.

For what it's worth, IL-2 has used a stick model that's given stick forces primacy over stick position for quite some time, and it suffers from its own set of problems.

The basic facts are that there are real limitations imposed on what you can do without proper FFB hardware, and though many have tried to convey some kind of artificial feel in the software by factoring in control forces, you start to run into problems when you start to abstract the control inputs of the player in ways you shouldn't.

I can tell you that there is nothing realistic feeling about this system on a non-FFB stick -- it has only added a second "fake" layer of a decoupled virtual stick into the mix that oscillates and opposes control movement in a way that can't be accounted for. This is not how aircraft controls behave: You don't pull back on the stick and then have it phase through your grip like a ghost for a moment in the opposite direction before it returns to your hand with every pitch input. These control forces should be simulated and be sent out to FFB devices where players can feel, manage and respond to them, but they should not be moving the stick when a player's grip is holding it stationary -- that's not how flying an aircraft works.

Modelling the system responsible for generating the forces in the aircraft (the control linkage, bobweights, bellows, aerodynamic loads) was worthwhile, of course. But going the extra step of trying to reinvent how the standard DCS stick model works with a standard joystick was counterproductive and has introduced its own new set of problems.

 

Edited May 24, 2024 by kablamoman

[Hiob]

@Super Grover When I realized, that I could adjust the gain for pitch and roll above 100%, my "problems" with the main FFB implementation (forces for flight control surfaces) are no longer there.

If I could ask for anything/ make a wish - it would be, to make other effects, like moving flaps or gear, speedbrake-shudder, AOA or stall shudder, GUN and Weapon effects adjustable in gain in a similar fashion in the special options. 

I don't know if DCS supoorts such things. Currently, third party apps like telemFFB take care of that, but they don't have a profile for the Phantom (yet). So some effects are still missing. Not a big deal, but a native support of the wider FFB possibilities would be so cool!

[Super Grover]

5 minutes ago, Hiob said:

@Super Grover When I realized, that I could adjust the gain for pitch and roll above 100%, my "problems" with the main FFB implementation (forces for flight control surfaces) are no longer there.

If I could ask for anything/ make a wish - it would be, to make other effects, like moving flaps or gear, speedbrake-shudder, AOA or stall shudder, GUN and Weapon effects adjustable in gain in a similar fashion in the special options. 

I don't know if DCS supoorts such things. Currently, third party apps like telemFFB take care of that, but they don't have a profile for the Phantom (yet). So some effects are still missing. Not a big deal, but a native support of the wider FFB possibilities would be so cool!

Okey, dokey. I mean, that's doable. Just please don't ask me to create a user interface for that now. Let's start by working with a config file when prototyping these experimental features. Feel free to brainstorm here on the list of what factors could be included. I imagine we could do the same as in some driving/racing sims, where certain features are transferred to the wheel, even though you wouldn't have the same feedback in the actual car. I mean, I'm open to your input and ideas.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Super Grover

[Hiob]

10 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

Okey, dokey. I mean, that's doable. Just please don't ask me to create a user interface for that now. Let's start by working with a config file when prototyping these experimental features. Feel free to brainstorm here on the list of what factors could be included. I imagine we could do the same as in some driving/racing sims, where certain features are transferred to the wheel, even though you wouldn't have the same feedback in the actual car. I mean, I'm open to your input and ideas.

 

That's how it currently works with the third party apps. The DCS-telemetry exports such thing like, gear and flaps movement, ground rumble (I think the main gear compression is used for that), gun and so forth.....

If it was just some .lua I need (or could) edit myself to adjust effect strength, that would be sufficiant (to me at least).

Perhaps someone (I'm currently not on my gaming rig) can post a screenshot of a TelemFFB page. That's a pretty comprehensive list of all thinkable effects.

[Super Grover]

9 minutes ago, Hiob said:

That's how it currently works with the third party apps. The DCS-telemetry exports such thing like, gear and flaps movement, ground rumble (I think the main gear compression is used for that), gun and so forth.....

If it was just some .lua I need (or could) edit myself to adjust effect strength, that would be sufficiant (to me at least).

Perhaps someone (I'm currently not on my gaming rig) can post a screenshot of a TelemFFB page. That's a pretty comprehensive list of all thinkable effects.

Oh yes. I mean that we have more direct access and more details, which we can use to control the experience and crank it up to 11.

[Art-J]

1 hour ago, Phantom12 said:

My understanding is still that you can turn the whole thing off with the right settings if you so desire. Not sure why its an issue. And like Hiob says its really a separate issue from what we are trying to discuss here.

Apparently you cannot, that's the point. Only offset it somewaht by disabling "blending" in special options.

That being said, DCS Bf-109 was using similar approach for first few years after release ("forces" vs displacement simulation of virtual stick movement by non-FFB joysticks) and we were taking off, shooting things down and landing it anyway. So maybe it is a question of getting used to. Time will tell.

[lengro]

49 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

These control forces should be simulated and be sent out to FFB devices where players can feel, manage and respond to them, but they should not be moving the stick when a player's grip is holding it stationary

If that's what's actually happening in this module, I'm genuinely curious to understand how this can be perceived as better or more realistic.

Edited May 24, 2024 by lengro

[markturner1960]

15 hours ago, Hiob said:

Ok, so I tested putting the ingame gains for roll and pitch (special options) over 100. That works well. Roll 250-300, Pitch ~150 seems a good setting for me. The workaround with the balancing spring isn't further necessary. (feels similar though) 

Putting the friction to 10-15% (effect gain 100%, master gain 100%) works good for me.

Can you just clarify some things? First, how come you have 2 pots working,. my Rhino only has one pot ( black knob) on it, plus the red cutoff switch? 

Second, when you mention the friction at 10-15% do you mean in the slider on the first page? 

Thirdly, effect & master gain 100% - is this susbsequent to the settings you posted further up? 

Going to try your settings now....

[Hiob]

18 minutes ago, markturner1960 said:

Can you just clarify some things? First, how come you have 2 pots working,. my Rhino only has one pot ( black knob) on it, plus the red cutoff switch? 

Second, when you mention the friction at 10-15% do you mean in the slider on the first page? 

Thirdly, effect & master gain 100% - is this susbsequent to the settings you posted further up? 

Going to try your settings now....

The way I understand it is, the gains (effects, settings, and master gain) work as multipliers/factors - so it doesn't really matter which one you reduce - you can't just have all on 100.

For myself, I have master gain on 100%, effects gain on 100% (mostly) and control the overall effect strength with the gain sliders on the settings tab.

The Circuit board of the Rhino has two inputs available for potentiometers (as you can see in the software) - I build my from a DIY kit and choose to use both (or better the kit-maker @Winger choose to provide it that way ).

But you can let the configurator run in the background and apply the changes on the fly while flying. Works almost equally comfortable.

Edit: I just learned from Walmis that of course it isn't completely equal where you adjust the gains, because the gains on the effects page are controlled and are probably overriden by the application, whereas the settings page control the maximum allowable force independently from the application! Keep that in mind!

Edited May 24, 2024 by Hiob

[firefox121]

After reading this post........and I have a question:

I owns a Microsoft Sidewinder ffb2, so I unchecked the two blend and the other param and tune up the gain to 250% both axis and I feel more or less good

My question :

For all of the less rich people like me that can't afford the expensives new ffb's joysticks .... What the hell are the good settings?

Can someone owning MSFFB2 point me on the right direction?

Thanks in advance.

[The LT]

6 hours ago, Bazz_Mulder said:

Stop being passive-aggressive. You have a different point of view and that's great, but demanding someone else to change his/ because you don't like it is at least immature. And that “joke” is offensive in the context of your posts.

I'm getting used to this new system simulation as Mike said, it's a first in consumer end sim, and I'm starting to get better at it. I encourage you to do the same.

As @Hiob said, this topic is mixing ffb and no-ffb stuff which can be misleading.

 

Except that he's not being passive aggressive. On the contrary, he explains the issue in detail and gives a thorough analysis, expecting at least a discussion but immediately gets cut off. You are obviously totally incapable of joining in on it and proving or disproving anything. His joke is also well-placed. HB guys didn't even bother to offer a plausible explanation. (We suspect there is none apart from - "we worked too hard and too long on it to just give it up, we're gonna just wrap it up as a unique sales prop and feed it to the public). Going "not gonna happen" on an SME without an explanation isn't mature either.
You may not know who he is but trust me, if there is an SME worthy of listening to, its him.
They even openly admitted they don't really care for SME feedback, writing it off as something "subjective". So, they basically do as they please. This is NOT how proper simulation is done.

I don't care about Mike's marketing talk and I don't buy it in the slightest. You may be gullible enough to get used to whatever you're told, but some of us have done our homework quite diligently before the release and our worst fears have been confirmed.

And FFB/Non-FFB is related. If we had an option to turn this damn thing off - we would in an instant.

[Phantom12]

2 hours ago, firefox121 said:

After reading this post........and I have a question:

I owns a Microsoft Sidewinder ffb2, so I unchecked the two blend and the other param and tune up the gain to 250% both axis and I feel more or less good

My question :

For all of the less rich people like me that can't afford the expensives new ffb's joysticks .... What the hell are the good settings?

Can someone owning MSFFB2 point me on the right direction?

Thanks in advance.

I also use an MS FFB2 and have settled on the following for now: Blending on, gain 200% on both axes and no curves or saturation in the controls section. I have the max force limit off but i dont think it should make any difference for FFB. Grover said that blending shouldnt change anything either but it does seem to change the gains somehow. I left it on as it "feels" better and as grover mentioned it doesnt decouple the real and virtual stick for FFB like it does with the spring sticks. Idk if those are the "best" settings but ive played around with gains and options on and off and a few different curves and thats what I think I prefer at the moment.

I understand grover will do a write up on the flight controls and their implementation so unless I learn something new in there that changes my mind I think ill stick with these.