[Suggestion] Spring joystick control.

[BMS]

Is it possible to make an option so that the spring joystick has a direct connection with the stick in the cockpit?

Edited May 24, 2024 by IronMike

[felixx75]

1 hour ago, BMS said:

Is it possible to make an option so that the spring joystick has a direct connection with the stick in the cockpit?

What do you mean?

[Super Grover]

I am sorry to disappoint you, BMS, but I'm quite certain that you don't want that to happen as this would cause an effect similar to the problem which some of the users experience when one of their non-FFB controllers report as FFB-capable, and they have to disable it in the options. Effectively, this wouldn't let you use the trim, and the aircraft would have a nose-up tendency as the middle of the available stick deflection range is equal to the stabilator position of 7° leading edge down.

[Selliese]

3 часа назад, Super Grover сказал:

I am sorry to disappoint you, BMS, but I'm quite certain that you don't want that to happen as this would cause an effect similar to the problem which some of the users experience when one of their non-FFB controllers report as FFB-capable, and they have to disable it in the options. Effectively, this wouldn't let you use the trim, and the aircraft would have a nose-up tendency as the middle of the available stick deflection range is equal to the stabilator position of 7° leading edge down.

Is it possible to disable spontaneous deviations of the stick?
 

[Super Grover]

Thank you for your message, Selliese. The GIF you posted demonstrates correct and intended behaviour. You start by pulling the stick, and this causes the aircraft to increase the angle of attack. The increased AoA translates to a G-Force build-up. The F-4 has a bobweight attached to the pitch controls, and the force (moment) of the bobweight is proportional to the G-Force. The more G, the more the neutral stick position gets displaced forward. In other words, the bobweight always acts as if it wants to return the aircraft to 1 G. When you released the stick, the G number was still high, and so the neutral position was displaced forward. When the aircraft unloaded, the neutral position returned slowly to the original position before the entire manoeuvre.

Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the F-5 that well to compare it with the F-4, so I don't know if the observed behaviour is correct. Usually, I'd be eager to understand that myself and to share that understanding with you; however, the responsibilities related to the release prevent me from dedicating time to that - I'm sorry. Nevertheless, if you find the answer yourself, you may share it with all of us so we can learn some interesting details about the F-5.

[unlikely_spider]

2 hours ago, Super Grover said:

Thank you for your message, Selliese. The GIF you posted demonstrates correct and intended behaviour. You start by pulling the stick, and this causes the aircraft to increase the angle of attack. The increased AoA translates to a G-Force build-up. The F-4 has a bobweight attached to the pitch controls, and the force (moment) of the bobweight is proportional to the G-Force. The more G, the more the neutral stick position gets displaced forward. In other words, the bobweight always acts as if it wants to return the aircraft to 1 G. When you released the stick, the G number was still high, and so the neutral position was displaced forward. When the aircraft unloaded, the neutral position returned slowly to the original position before the entire manoeuvre.

Unfortunately, I don't know the details of the F-5 that well to compare it with the F-4, so I don't know if the observed behaviour is correct. Usually, I'd be eager to understand that myself and to share that understanding with you; however, the responsibilities related to the release prevent me from dedicating time to that - I'm sorry. Nevertheless, if you find the answer yourself, you may share it with all of us so we can learn some interesting details about the F-5.

Is this the cause of my issue illustrated here:

The stick is expected to be fully deflected forward while sitting on the ramp? Also is it expected to "wobble" fore and aft after a minor deflection of the stick? This is very strange behavior to me. It feels like I'm fighting someone who doesn't understand positive exchange of controls.

[Zabuzard]

23 minutes ago, unlikely_spider said:

The stick is expected to be fully deflected forward while sitting on the ramp?

Correct.

The bellows system pulls at the stick with increasing airspeed, while the bobweight system pushes the stick forward with increasing G. In flight and when you are trimmed out well, these forces roughly balance each other out naturally.

On ground however, the bellows measure airspeed 0 and hence do not add any force that would counter the bobweight system pushing the stick forward. You also will not see trim doing anything in that situation, since the trimming merely changes the length of the lever the bellows can apply force to the stick and not moving the stick around directly.

Essentially, the design idea of the engineers was to create an early mechanical system that naturally will try to pull you back into somewhat level flight even if you passed out or something.

Edited May 23, 2024 by Zabuzard

[kablamoman]

3 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

Correct.

The bellows system pulls at the stick with increasing airspeed, while the bobweight system pushes the stick forward with increasing G. In flight and when you are trimmed out well, these forces roughly balance each other out naturally.

With respect, the problem is not with the simulation of the control feel system of the plane, but rather a side effect of how the virtual stick has been modelled for non-FFB users.

The bellows/bob weight system is for modulating control pressures -- not stick position. In essence, it is providing the same kind of stick feel to the pilot as they would feel flying a more traditional type of flight control system. In the latter case, those pressures would be provided by aerodynamic forces acting upon the control surfaces as expressed through the control linkages.

From the pilot's perspective, the stick should behave relatively the same as any other aircraft in terms of stick forces and their relationship to deviations in trim speed and stick inputs, albeit with differing levels of those forces.

In the module, though, what we have is a virtual stick that's been modelled to incorporate FFB-like feedback, even without FFB hardware. The result is that the virtual stick is being moved in ways it shouldn't -- in direct opposition of the user's direct input, as the other posters have shown above.

This is not good and breaks some pretty important rules about emulating sticks in flight sims, leading to some profound controllability problems that have nothing to do with the underlying systems.

Edited May 23, 2024 by kablamoman

[Super Grover]

@kablamoman, thank you for expressing your opinion—we value every user's opinion and feedback. However, we disagree with your arguments and won't be able to apply them to our F-4E in the near future. Such changes would break the module's fundamental features, and we think they could adversely impact the quality of our product. Nevertheless, we will consider your opinion and try to address all the points you raised in our future updates and products.

[kablamoman]

35 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

thank you for expressing your opinion—we value every user's opinion and feedback. However, we disagree with your arguments and won't be able to apply them to our F-4E in the near future. Such changes would break the module's fundamental features, and we think they could adversely impact the quality of our product. Nevertheless, we will consider your opinion and try to address all the points you raised in our future updates and products.

Appreciate it. I do recognize what a monumental undertaking it's been and wish you the best of luck. Back to the warbirds for me, I guess!

[Nealius]

Doesn't the Tomcat also have a similar bobweight/bellows system, or am I misremembering?

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, Nealius said:

Doesn't the Tomcat also have a similar bobweight/bellows system, or am I misremembering?

Bobweights (and various bell cranks, cams, and rollers) -- but no bellows.

The specifics of the system are not really important, though. Both systems are there to provide a specific stick feel throughout the performance envelope so the pilot can feel what the aircraft is doing IRL.

Real control forces are useful for max performing or having extra sensory input telling you how close you might be to stalling, for instance. In real life, you have to learn how to take that information into account, and often times even consciously work against it, depending on what you want to accomplish. As sim pilots, we learn to use specific visual cues like pitch rate trends, or slight wing dips, or buffeting in response to our input, or even aural cues to help clue us into some of these things. The great thing about FFB if you can get a stick that incorporates it is that you don't have to guess at it as much and can enjoy the real feeling of controls that become loaded with speed, g, or excessive trim.

The problem with this specific module is that they have broken with DCS tradition, and they are manifesting those control loads in the stick simulation in the form of uncontrollable stick position changes. You cannot damp them or prevent them from happening by holding your stick firmly like you'd be able to in real life. No bueno and leads to a sloppy feel in pitch, which accomplishes the exact opposite of what the bobweights/bellows were intended to do when they were originally conceived and designed in the first place!

I just went round with Steam trying to get a refund, but was unable, due to the time I already put in experimenting with the module trying to figure out what was going on.

So, you're stuck with me complaining I guess, Heatblur!

The module is really a work of art, though, so I guess I am glad to support the endeavor (and I'd like to hold out some hope for future improvements in this area).

Edited May 24, 2024 by kablamoman

[Nealius]

49 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

The problem with this specific module is that they have broken with DCS tradition, and they are manifesting those control loads in the stick simulation in the form of uncontrollable stick position changes. You cannot damp them or prevent them from happening by holding your stick firmly like you'd be able to in real life. No bueno and leads to a sloppy feel in pitch, which accomplishes the exact opposite of what the bobweights/bellows were intended to do when they were originally conceived and designed in the first place!

Could this be the cause of the uncommanded pitch-down moments when easing off back pressure from the stick?

[Aero4000]

Dear developer, I understand that you wanted to show the unique control system of the Phantom. But. In the control system you have modeled, the control stick behaves as if the pilot does not touch it at all (the free stick). At least whenever a regular spring-loaded joystick is in neutral position. But this does not happen in real life, so that no one holds the control stick. Please add a pilot by reducing the effects of the freely dancing controls. Let the pilot's hand also act as a spring and damper in the control system. 
Better yet, let the virtual pilot decide for himself how tightly he will hold the control stick. From 0% as it is now, to 100% as it in the requests above.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Aero4000

[IronMike]

There will be no such changes. We kindly ask that you 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 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).

3 hours ago, Aero4000 said:

Dear developer, I understand that you wanted to show the unique control system of the Phantom. But. In the control system you have modeled, the control stick behaves as if the pilot does not touch it at all (the free stick). At least whenever a regular spring-loaded joystick is in neutral position. But this does not happen in real life, so that no one holds the control stick. Please add a pilot by reducing the effects of the freely dancing controls. Let the pilot's hand also act as a spring and damper in the control system. 
Better yet, let the virtual pilot decide for himself how tightly he will hold the control stick. From 0% as it is now, to 100% as it in the requests above.

 

This is not true. We do assume that the pilot has the hand on the stick all the time, and actively works on positioning the stick, constantly controlling it, and fights the forces that apply to the stick. So it is exactly the opposite of what you describe.

Edited May 24, 2024 by IronMike

[Aero4000]

18 минут назад, IronMike сказал:

This is not true. We do assume that the pilot has the hand on the stick all the time, and actively works on positioning the stick, constantly controlling it, and fights the forces that apply to the stick. So it is exactly the opposite of what you describe.

Do you mean to say that the hand of a real pilot holding the handle moves through the cockpit with exactly this amplitude, even taking into account the fact that the pilot at least slightly counteracts this movement? As a pilot, I can't believe it, I'm sorry. If the plane had moved the control stick itself like that, even on the ground when trimming, and I couldn't hold it in the position I needed, I would have canceled the flight.

[Super Grover]

2 minutes ago, Aero4000 said:

Do you mean to say that the hand of a real pilot holding the handle moves through the cockpit with exactly this amplitude, even taking into account the fact that the pilot at least slightly counteracts this movement? As a pilot, I can't believe it, I'm sorry. If the plane had moved the control stick itself like that, even on the ground when trimming, and I couldn't hold it in the position I needed, I would have canceled the flight.

I'm afraid you might be simplifying the understanding of the underlying mechanics too much and, hence, getting wrong answers because the starting point uses incorrect assumptions. I'll prepare a longer write-up explaining some of the system's details, but for now, I want to reassure you and everyone that everything we did in this matter was to increase realism, not the other way around.

[Baldrick33]

Some great explanations of why the stick behaves as it does and hats off to the developers to simulating the behaviour of the system.

I think the issue some of us have is that our physical controllers can't replicate the real world stick. It reminds me of the many discussions about how to simulate a gear lever in sim racing when the gear change fails but we have no baulk on our controllers so the gear lever is in on our controller but not in sim. There have been various methods of software solutions - gear grinding noises requiring trying again, assume the driver is still applying pressure to the lever and wait for the conditions to be right rev/throttle wise and so on. No one method is universally accepted!

Especially in VR the 1:1 relationship with controls seems paramount for immersion IMHO. In 2D I would always hide the controls as it seems odd having two of them in view.

This may seem anathema to the developers who have spent so much time replicating the real world system but I wonder about creating an option to have the stick move directly in relation to the controller but behind the scenes the actual control movement remains as is (much like the fly by wire stick in the Hornet which you can move as you like but the computer decides how much the flight controls are actually moved).

It isn't realistic but arguably more immersive given the limitations of our controllers.

Right now it feels like there is double binding going on and it messes with my head much like when auto rudders for takeoff gets turned on with reinstalling warbirds!

 

[Maksim Savelev]

I was writing it down at the FFB topic, but this topic is more related. So sorry to all of you who will read it twice:

 

To HeatBlur
Hello. I'm participating as a test pilot and some kind of expert in the FFBeast project. It all started more than 3.5 years ago, but the devices are only now getting ready to be delivered to the first customers. We made significant progress by understanding the necessity of a wide range of feedback forces required for correct simulation and implementing them into our products. At this moment, some versions can produce about 60 pounds of force, which makes them a perfect fit for use with the Phantom. I have been talking to other people about how important it is to have such devices. Coming from my real-life experience of flying a wide variety of different aircraft, I was able to replicate the feel of controls of most airplanes and helicopters in DCS throughout the project software. For example, when we’re talking about the Mosquito or Spitfire, very little stick movement is required to control the aircraft in the longitudinal axis. That is why the stick has to be very firm and well-loaded from the first millimeters of movement to prevent over-control. But it would be a very different story for the Fokker A-8. The same applies to different types of jets depending on the type of boosting systems they have, Fly-by-wire, or the absence of any boosters. The main idea behind all of this is that through the control stick and pedals, you can feel the “character” of the aircraft you’re flying. Let’s say you’re sliding the tail down in your P-51 after a vertical line; you should be prepared and keep your flight stick firmly; otherwise, it will probably kick you very hard between your legs. So all of this makes people with flight experience believe that they’re flying the real thing, especially in VR, and teaches virtual pilots what to expect from real controls and helps them better understand the regimes they’re getting themselves into. Using FFB is what makes flying “bright and colorful,” and no matter what, you can’t replicate the same with a regular spring-loaded joystick. Sliding the tail down on a regular joystick won’t give you the feel of airflow going in the backward direction. But it doesn’t mean you can fake this by breaking the linkage between a physical joystick and the 3D stick in the cockpit, letting it go all the way to the pilot seat because you will affect the pilot’s decision, will, and control of the aircraft. It might be that he wanted to have the stick all the way forward to make the airplane fall on its back. What you have done by trying to fake FFB feelings on the stick when using a spring joystick is absolutely unacceptable because the pilot doesn’t have any control over this. No matter what, you’re not allowed to interrupt the pilot’s control input in such a way because it doesn’t work right, replicates nothing except your poor judgment, and brings only frustration and poor flight technique, which is already a problem among virtual pilots. I get your point; I read the manual and went through the schematics very precisely, watched a lot of videos to compare stick behavior, and even though I don’t agree with you on how in a very exaggerated way you wanted to simulate stick rebalancing, on FFB I can overcome it by force, but there’s no possible way to fight it on a spring joystick. Please leave this “rebalancing” feature only for FFB users and don’t try to fake it in a very “arcadic” way for people with spring joysticks. They are at a disadvantage already, having all aircraft and helicopters “flat and grey,” it’s already very difficult.
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.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Maksim Savelev

[Aero4000]

… Or, please, just give us the opportunity to adjust the intensity (hardness) of the connection between the virtual control stick and the spring-loaded joystick. Everyone will be happy.

[Baldrick33]

I don't have any immersion issues with limits being set, e.g. if I pull my stick fully aft but the virtual stick stops short because the pilot wouldn't be able to physically pull it all the way back due to the forces. In my little head I am pulling as hard as I can and the virtual stick is back as far as it will go.

What I find a little strange is the stick moving forward or back to mimic my controller movements and then appearing to move on its own as the forces get applied on the stick. I understand why this happens just that it creates an illusion of some kind of assist or double binding.

I am sure I can ignore it but it just breaks immersion a little in VR. 

As an experiment I did try and turn off the stick in Gameplay but it still always shows (with the pilot off)

[FusRoPotato]

9 hours ago, Super Grover said:

I'm afraid you might be simplifying the understanding of the underlying mechanics too much and, hence, getting wrong answers because the starting point uses incorrect assumptions. I'll prepare a longer write-up explaining some of the system's details, but for now, I want to reassure you and everyone that everything we did in this matter was to increase realism, not the other way around.

When you attempt to connect a virtual aircraft to someone sitting behind a computer and spring loaded joystick, there are some disconnects that can't be avoided. In a simulation, the relationship between aircraft and stick may be complex and interesting, but it is not the whole story. There is also a relationship between the pilot and stick that is typically not well modeled in the industry or ignored entirely. Judging by the force options presented, at least someone agrees.

For non-FFB/simput users, the lack of physical feedback from the aircraft and the stick itself often causes attempts at realism to become unrealistic. Modeling reactive forces without the ability to mimic the fluid and intuitive reactions of an experienced pilot leads to unexpected faults in control fluidity. This lack of nuanced feedback prevents users from flying the aircraft as smoothly and accurately as intended, diminishing both the realism and enjoyment of the simulation. Adjusting these features to account for the limitations of non-FFB hardware would enhance the overall experience for a broader audience, and may also help reduce the rather large amount of complaints I've been seeing across Discords.

Disagree if you want, but I have to completely agree with @kablamoman, realism has been overstepped in an attempt to be realistic. Some things are simply not possible or reasonable with a spring stick. I get the impression someone has taken too much pride in developing the mechanical force complexities of these forces and now intends to try and force it onto people who don't have the necessary hardware. For many, you're only punishing and disappointing them. Will you gaslight or disrespect them as well?

10 hours ago, IronMike said:

There will be no such changes. We kindly ask that you 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.

A lot of pilots will argue a point until they decide they have better things to do. If you're getting blowback from testers, SMEs, and consumers (which you will get much more of), getting them to submit by argument doesn't fix anything. The fact of the matter is, there is no "feel" in a spring stick. They are watching their aircraft wobble unexpectedly.

Edited May 24, 2024 by FusRoPotato

[lxsapper]

While I tend to agree with everyone about the disconect between fisical stick position and the sim, I have to say I don't find the Phantom dificult to control atm, while I still have a lot to practice regarding my landings, I can make smoth aproaches with no bouncing of the stick up and down. I am flying with blended turned off and trimming A LOT, and I actually find the F-4 actually flyes more stable and holds trim position better than any other aircraft in DCS, trim effect acumulates slowly and the aircraft really holds the nose where you put it. Granted I am flying my aproaches with little stick input, so that might be why it's not being a problem for me. Also granted I haven't got much stick time in it, but I have tried some other type of flying and did some dogfighting, and other thatn the big visual disconnect when I look down that the stick in the cockpit, it's not being too bothersome for me. But even with the visual disconnect is seems that mostly it takes the form of delayed movement.

[kablamoman]

9 hours ago, Super Grover said:

I'm afraid you might be simplifying the understanding of the underlying mechanics too much and, hence, getting wrong answers because the starting point uses incorrect assumptions. I'll prepare a longer write-up explaining some of the system's details, but for now, I want to reassure you and everyone that everything we did in this matter was to increase realism, not the other way around.

Honestly it seems like you've gotten lost in the weeds with regards to simulating the control feel mechanisms designed into the aircraft, and overlooked the fact that its entire purpose was to make it feel like an aircraft in terms of control response. It's a system designed to modulate pressure forces, and you've conflated that with stick position.

The output of the system is no different from a pilot's point of view than the aerodynamic forces acting through the control linkages of a P-51. The stick gets heavy as you pull harder. It gets lighter as your airspeed decreases. It gets heavier as you disturb it from trim and will want to return to its trimmed position. etc.

In the absence of proper FFB, I can infer what's happening from what I see happening on the screen. Virtual pull weight limits can even restrict my virtual stick travel in terms of max deflection or rate, or rescale my axis inputs and map a new trimmed neutral center -- but the one thing they should not do is disturb the stick with inputs in direct opposition to my commands. It feels terrible, it feels wrong, and it does not feel realistic at all.

With my spring-loaded stick, I can no more feel the P-51 control forces than I can those in the F-4E.  And yet the former module respects my control position, while the latter does not.

It's the same with other non-FBW modules. There was no need to reinvent the wheel here just because the F-4E happens to have a complex control system you have reverse engineered. That system is about feel and shouldn't be treated any differently than the feel of any other non-FBW aircraft in the sim. That is to say, we can't and shouldn't feel it without FFB!

Edited May 24, 2024 by kablamoman

[FusRoPotato]

6 minutes ago, lxsapper said:

While I tend to agree with everyone about the disconect between fisical stick position and the sim, I have to say I don't find the Phantom dificult to control atm

I don't find it difficult either. It's just one of those things that tends to get under people skins after a long time because they know there's no way to compensate for it without FFB.

Feel has been scripted to feed back into a device that doesn't offer it.

Edited May 24, 2024 by FusRoPotato