[Suggestion] Spring joystick control.

[kablamoman]

1 minute ago, Super Grover said:

That's a negative, Maverick. The control linkages are not attached to the control surfaces, so there is no feedback from the control surfaces to the stick as the control surfaces are moved by hydraulic power actuators.

yes I realized this may be the case and made an edit. The point still stands that we do not model aileron control like this in modules that do have direct linkage and experience aerodynamic loads.

[Super Grover]

3 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

yes I realized this may be the case and made an edit. The point still stands that we do not model aileron control like this in modules that do have direct linkage and experience aerodynamic loads.

May I correct your statement a bit? You may reconsider using the word "we", as neither you nor I model those modules. I mean that I can't address how a system is modelled in another module.

Edited May 24, 2024 by Super Grover

[kablamoman]

Just now, Super Grover said:

May I correct your statement a bit? You may reconsider using the word "we", as neither you nor I model those modules.

Sure. Let's call it "we" as in "every other module in DCS".

[Super Grover]

But the F-4E is not like every other module in DCS. It's THE PHANTOM.

[kablamoman]

2 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

But the F-4E is not like every other module in DCS. It's THE PHANTOM.

Spooky! 

[IronMike]

35 minutes ago, BMS said:

It looks like the developers are standing their ground. It is a pity that reasonable arguments cannot outweigh the reluctance to correct the original mistake. These are expenses, and the project is already being sold. However, I bought the module in anticipation of DСS standards in aircraft control.

If the DCS community continues to rely on beautiful videos from paid bloggers, commercialization will inexorably push real aviation enthusiasts out of the project, giving way to grateful buyers of impressive promos. However, this process is already underway.

I hope the developers will listen to people who understand the problem and change their position.

That is all good and fine, if the arguments are indeed reasonable (they are not entirely), it is a mistake (it is not, it is being vastly misunderstood, as just proven again), and people do understand the "problem", which again in parts they do not. It sounds all very reasonable, but there are some fundamental misunderstandings here, down to not knowing how the actual Phantom's flight controls work. We asked for a bit patience, till we find time to put up a thread where we explain the entire system. Demanding to change something, before you can show us that you understand it, is not really reasonable.

And we have no issues with reasonable requests, such as animation smoothing etc, which we already said we will do, even though I personally can assure you, that you would get used to it rather quickly. Again, please consider that so far less than 15 ppl expressed their discontent about this with us directly, vs the vast majority of the community feedback that we received in general seems to have a consensus of "it feels great", including our SMEs, extracted from hundreds of messages across various communication platforms. 

We hear what you are saying, we really do, but you have to give us a) the time to reply properly, which we repeatedly asked for and b) yourself the time to really understand it, before it is reasonable for anyone to "insist" on changes and to make such requests. Thank you for your kind patience, we hope we will have the thread about the flight controls system up soon.

I can only invite you all kindly again to give it an honest chance and spend some time with it, before you cast your judgment.

Feel free to discuss further, but please be so kind and understand that we will pick up the discussion again, once we have the thread up. As we are else turning in circles. We will of course continue to take your feedback on board in the meantime. Thank you!
 

Edited May 25, 2024 by IronMike

[kablamoman]

Cheers, guys.

Really do appreciate the openness!

I'll take my broken record off the turntable for a bit.

[IronMike]

3 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

Cheers, guys.

Really do appreciate the openness!

I'll take my broken record off the turntable for a bit.

All good, and we really do appreciate your input. And we will be looking forward to discuss with you more, and also try and put all the cards on the table, so you can form yourself a full picture of the system. Our apologies that we are currently busy with the Hotfix, so the ride can continue as smoothly as possible for you all. And we do hear you.

I wish you a great evening!

[kablamoman]

5 minutes ago, IronMike said:

All good, and we really do appreciate your input. And we will be looking forward to discuss with you more, and also try and put all the cards on the table, so you can form yourself a full picture of the system. Our apologies that we are currently busy with the Hotfix, so the ride can continue as smoothly as possible for you all. And we do hear you.

I wish you a great evening!

Don't be silly. I am surprised you guys are able to respond at all, as it must be a very busy time for you.

It's just another example of how great it is to have such dedicated third-party devs actually involved and making some real art, here.

To be clear, I am not clamoring for, nor would I ever expect any kind of immediate fix or anything. Anybody with half a brain that's been following the project knows it's the culmination of years of work, and I wouldn't expect anything short of obvious showstoppers to be addressed for some time as the masses get a hold of it and put it through its paces.

Nor do I expect you to necessarily agree with anything I'm saying, for that matter! 

@Super Grover @IronMike You guys both have a great evening, too!

[Baldrick33]

14 hours ago, IronMike said:

Please understand that what we cannot accept, is that folks want to tell us that the FM and stick input implementation is wrong, and to change it, after flying it for precisely 1 day or much less even in hours. and without having flown the real jet.

The reactions we get from SMEs (12 of them who flew the jet for thousands of combined hours and one of them who still flies it today) - are a destinct testimony to the opposite. The FM has been build based on heavily including their input, every step of the way. Again, whether you give it an open minded chance, or not, is up to you.

My experience of following similar discussions in driving and flying sims in VR for close to a decade is just how differently people are wired, be they gamers or real world racers and pilots it matters not. Stuff like locking race sims to horizon or not, amplifying rotation or yaw, force feedback settings (there are a zillion "perfect" settings all different), ideal FOV, VR reprojection, visible virtual bodies and hands.

A popular racing sim's simulation of preloading a gear lever is in my mind brilliant. I even took my wife's manual car out (I had an auto at the time) to prove the clutchless synchromesh gearbox modelling was spot on to the naysayers on the forum! - apply pressure on the gear lever, get the rev match right and the gear pops in. In my mind the sim and real life worked much the same. However, many hated it as in their minds instead of thinking preload they saw it as pre-engaging the gear because of the lack of baulk of a real gear lever. Simply press the button and when the right criteria for a gear change (revs or clutch depress) it magically changes gear - nothing like a real gearbox - which of course was true. Modelling without the physical feel of the real thing takes some imagination and that can be a personal thing. the debates went on for years, no one who didn't like it could be persuaded, of course as it isn't just visual the only option is to turn on auto clutch which is a miniscule performance disadvantage.

I couldn't comment on whether the simulation of the real Phantom stick is correct other than I firmly believe you guys would have got it right given the knowledge and dedication of your team and track record.

However, I also believe that for some people anything other than a 1:1 representation of the movements we make with our controllers will appear "wrong", it is simply how we are wired. Having the option shouldn't change how we fly. It would seem a shame that the work on modelling the visual representation of how the real world stick moves is lost on a group of people who turn it off but I think that is just the nature of how our brains are different.

Edited May 25, 2024 by Baldrick33

[Maksim Savelev]

Just had to make this video

 

[kablamoman]

10 hours ago, Maksim Savelev said:

Just had to make this video

Thanks so much for making the video. I was thinking of making something similar.

You've illustrated the dead stick on the ground and in the air at slow speed and its limp noodle behavior -- and how absurd it is -- quite well. There is zero reason why we shouldn't have full control over stick position in that situation, and it illustrates the major conceit and problem with their model in a way that's a little more obvious to most people. The pilot's hand is on the grip! We should be able to position it anywhere within its range of travel and hold it there in the complete absence of load forces, save for the bobweight. Maybe Heatblur thinks the average simmer is incapable of lifting 3-5 pounds? 

After trying to fly it quite a bunch more and only becoming more and more frustrated, I feel the emphasis really needs to be on the lack of direct correlation between the user's input and in-game stab position, how fundamental this relationship is to flying non-FBW aircraft, especially with a spring-loaded set up, and how it has been completely broken in this implementation. It is not true to life in any sense.

For instance, it's almost impossible to fly the cross: If you pull, but then unload the stick before trying to roll, you'll just experience a bunch of slop and oscillation in pitch. It's quite violent without pitch stab augmentation. It's impossible to achieve any precision. Forget the visual representation of the stick -- go to external camera and watch the stab dance around uncontrollably even though you've locked your grip tight.

It's such a large, fundamental error in modeling that the rest of the module is completely overshadowed.

My Phantom is grounded as well... Gotta talk to the crew chief, something is wrong with the rigging!

Edited May 27, 2024 by kablamoman

[FusRoPotato]

Yeah, and while I feel like I can get "used to" this control scheme, I think it will always leave room for desire if it remains this way. It's more realistic in the sense of: Here is what would realistically happen if you did not hold your stick properly or anticipate its forces. It's not the stick force modelling that gets me, it's the virtual pilot's response to it.

I have noticed similar problems when just performing basic maneuvers in a tight radius. I can get to a point where I'm pulling back on the stick further and further to maintain the same circle. Its as if weakness is being modeled into my arm.

[Aero4000]

Link to the full version of the mentioned movie.

 

[felixx75]

To be honest, I don't understand all the big drama surrounding this issue. As far as I understand it, it's only about the visual implementation of the stick's behavior on the plane. But since you usually look out of the window when flying, or at best look at the instruments from time to time and not at the stick, this can't really be a problem...

[Kril_FC]

To be honest, I don't understand all the big drama surrounding this issue. As far as I understand it, it's only about the visual implementation of the stick's behavior on the plane. But since you usually look out of the window when flying, or at best look at the instruments from time to time and not at the stick, this can't really be a problem...

Its not about visual, its about interaction between the joystick and the behavior of the aircraft.

[CapnCoke]

This reminds me of a similar situation with the Mirage F1's "ARTHUR". When I first flew it, everything was fine until I noticed that I'm pulling 10 degrees irl while my ingame visual stick was pulling around 3-5 degrees. That started to bother me and I disabled FFB simulation in the Special Options. I adjusted my curves and now its nearly 1:1 to my stick. I was happy until I started doing some combat missions in multiplayer instead of just flying around. During dogfights, I got into the habit of bleeding my speed way too much since I was aggressively increasing my turn rate. That's because the stick is not simulating the increase of forces which tells the pilot to relieve the stick a bit. I've also been pulling really high aoa in situations where I didn't really want to (eg. high speed low level bombing and gently pulling away). I also ended up snapping my wings alot when I suddenly pull to avoid a missile/AAA. I then turned on FFB simulation and never looked back. Flying felt natural and I rarely snapped my wings.

I can understand the sentiment of those oppose to it. After flying the Phantom for the first time, seeing the stick behave like that felt really off. But I believe we still deserve an option to disable it like the Mirage. I'm pretty sure alot of people will go back and reenable it (get the natural feel back and let the stick do its thing), and some will just try to get used to it disabled (will keep the visual stick position 1:1 but flying will feel off).

Edited May 26, 2024 by CapnCoke

[Aero4000]

We just need to give HB time for a thorough explanation - this is 100% accurate information)) After all, they asked for it. After that, people who feel they have understood the essence will be able to continue discussing the problem.  From the point of view of DCS veterans, now it looks like non-Newtonian physics, to put it mildly)) But I just keep flying.

[Nealius]

1 hour ago, CapnCoke said:

This reminds me of a similar situation with the Mirage F1's "ARTHUR".

Now that you mention it, the first few builds of the F1 had the same nose-dipping pitch issues that the Phantom is exhibiting now. Hopefully just like with the F1, the Phantom's FM tuning as updates progress will iron things out.

[IronMike]

2 hours ago, Kril_FC said:

Its not about visual, its about interaction between the joystick and the behavior of the aircraft.

Which is instant, minus inertia that would also occur in real life, unlike falsly understood by some in this thread.

The reason a stick on the ground would not fall forward when pulled by nose down trim, is friction, which cannot be emulated in DCS. However, this only applies to being on the ground. IRL you would need to pull back on the stick to counter the nose down trim. You can still pull it backwards in the sim, if you want, but leaving it centred, means that you are not pulling. Once you get sufficient airflow, this issue is not present anymore and does not apply. Only one of the points where the video above is wrong.

"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 to which the bellows can apply force to the stick and do not move the stick around directly."

But hey, getting it out there and spreading misinformation and calling us wrong, again, without understanding fully how it works or even considering the above information, is a great course of action, I guess, while the complaint basically sums up to "my spring stick neutral position should equal my hand pulling on the stick, even though my real hand is not pulling on the stick." Like, how about: pull on your stick? And again, this is only an issue when sitting on the ground, as in flight the bobweights and bellows more or less balance each other out when trimmed. 

I also think what many don't understand, is how little roll you get at slow speed in the F-4, which makes it feel like it is delayed at times, and the inertia that is in effect in the real flight model. The only disconnect you have, is visual. And we already promised: "Yes, that's a feature we can and will add - just a 1:1 animation without any smoothing. Similarly, we want to add it to the pilot body, which, when smoothened, may cause unpleasant sensations in VR for some. I can't promise the timeline, but such an option will undoubtedly appear."

Equally trim is something that needs getting used to, as everyone is used to a "fake" tim axis, naturally so. Trim in the F-4 does not move stick center up and down an axis, it changes the lever to which the bellows can apply force to the stick, it does not move the stick around. The F-4 was and is notorious for trimming, needs careful but constant trimming. Yet I can easily trim her on speed level and fly around for ages like that almost hands off. If your nose is dropping - pull back on the stick and trim. Once you are trimmed out nicely, you need less hands on, but even so, you can never be really hands off with it except for a few seconds.

I can only repeat what I said above: we won't change it. It's not up to debate now, and it won't be up to debate in the future. Our apologies if that leaves a handful of people disappointed, which of course is not our intention.

Edited May 27, 2024 by IronMike

[kablamoman]

On 5/26/2024 at 9:33 PM, IronMike said:

The only disconnect you have, is visual

This is unequivocally, undeniably false.

The virtual stick moving about uncommanded by the player in pitch is directly representative of the virtual horizontal stab moving about uncommanded. You can see it for yourself in the external view. Since the stab is also moving and altering flight dynamics, this is in no way "only visual".

This is happening because the player is not directly connected to the control loop via the stick as they would be in real life, or indeed in other more properly modelled non-FBW modules (including the F-14).

 

On 5/26/2024 at 9:33 PM, IronMike said:

but leaving it centred, means that you are not pulling.

No, leaving it centered means the stick is centered! The sim cannot possibly know whether or not the springs are holding it centered, or if our grip is. Traditionally linked flight controls behave just the same on the ground in the absence of dynamic pressures over the control surfaces as the F-4 should -- the elevators or stabs will droop under their own weight and the stick will usually slump forward against the stops. That doesn't mean you can't move it around freely -- quite the opposite, as it can be far easier and lighter to manipulate without any load -- you're just lifting the weight of the control surface itself. In the game currently on the ground and at low airspeeds as in the video posted, the stick flops around as if nobody has their hands on it, and when you do try to manipulate the stick to set a desired control surface deflection, your inputs are in essence run through a ridiculous filter that ends up flopping it around every which way. This is in no way realistic!

 

On 5/26/2024 at 9:33 PM, IronMike said:

But hey, getting it out there and spreading misinformation and calling us wrong, again, without understanding fully how it works or even considering the above information, is a great course of action, I guess, while the complaint basically sums up to "my spring stick neutral position should equal my hand pulling on the stick, even though my real hand is not pulling on the stick."

This is completely misrepresenting what @Maksim Savelev was saying, and in fact leads me to believe you are the one not understanding how control inputs work in real aircraft.

As pilots, we use the control stick directly to set a desired deflection, which gives us our desired attitude -- we do this IRREGARDLESS of forces felt through the controls. If we want to sustain that selected attitude for a period of time, we'll only then trim out the force.

You have broken this basic principle with your stick modelling for non-FFB users and made it impossible to smoothly and accurately set desired pitch attitudes without a whole heap of extra slop that shouldn't be there.

I get it, you were trying to convey a "feel", which is great. You have done similar things in the past with the enhanced buffeting and aural cues in the Tomcat. But this time you have actually broken the most primary flight control loop in a very real way.

Edited June 2, 2024 by kablamoman

[IronMike]

To the first point: Not sure how often we need to repeat that the low pass filter is only visual. Apparently you know our code better than us. We also said repeatedly that you will get a smoothed animation setting it 1:1

To the second point: As explained this is only the case on the ground, because friction cannot be emulated in DCS. It does not apply, when airborne.

To the third point: it is impossible for you, maybe, but the far majority seems to have no problems with it, including our SMEs, who are happy with the FM as is, and further fine tuning will be done based on their feedback, and theirs alone.

I get it, you do not want to get used to it and learn to fly it, because you disagree with how it is modeled. That is your prerogative. Just please don't expect us to change and re-code our FM and stick simulation to accommodate a minority, who does not like it. I can understand the blowback, what I cannot understand is not giving yourself enough time to learn how to fly the F-4 with precision as is. If most of us can, there is no reason why you wouldn't be able to either. I can only invite you again, to do so.

As predicted, we are turning in circles, so please forgive us, if we move on from this discussion. As promised, we will have the thread that explains the simulation up, once we have time for it. If you want to revisit the topic then, we'll be happy to.

Edited May 27, 2024 by IronMike

[kablamoman]

54 minutes ago, IronMike said:

To the first point: Not sure how often we need to repeat that the low pass filter is only visual. Apparently you know our code better than us. We also said repeatedly that you will get a smoothed animation setting it 1:1

Is the plane's nose oscillating up and down in reaction to the stab going up and down only visual???

I'm sorry, but what??

I am really struggling to understand the disconnects here (both in the discussion, and in the F-4's virtual flight controls).

54 minutes ago, IronMike said:

To the second point: As explained this is only the case on the ground, because friction cannot be emulated in DCS. It's irrelevant, when airborne.

It's not only the case on the ground -- watch the end of maksim's video at 15:45 as he lets the plane nose over close to the stall. His physical joystick is centered, yet the stab and in-game stick are fully forward. Pretty sure he's in the air there!

 

54 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I get it, you do not want to get used to it and learn to fly it, because you disagree with how it is modeled. That is your prerogative. Just please don't expect us to change and re-code our FM and stick simulation to accommodate a minority, who does not like it.

I don't want to get used to it because it is broken. It does not fly like a real aircraft in this one critical regard. I get that you do not want to accept that assertion, and that's your prerogative as well.

I also get that most players don't know enough to understand what's going on as they don't fly aircraft in real life. Maybe one day, if they ever get a chance to learn, they'll understand that they sometimes actually have to push back against the controls in order to make them do what they want.

Edited May 27, 2024 by kablamoman

[FusRoPotato]

42 minutes ago, IronMike said:

But hey, getting it out there and spreading misinformation and calling us wrong, again, without understanding fully how it works or even considering the above information, is a great course of action, I guess, while the complaint basically sums up to "my spring stick neutral position should equal my hand pulling on the stick, even though my real hand is not pulling on the stick." Like, how about: pull on your stick? And again, this is only an issue when sitting on the ground, as in flight the bobweights and bellows more or less balance each other out when trimmed. 

 

You've installed a virtual pilot between the virtual stick and spring stick who decides where to hold the virtual stick based on the position of the spring stick using a blend of position and force demand. This is why the stick goes limp, why it moves when uncommanded, and why people are having difficulties. I would normally commend that but the outcome must be that someone without FFB should have similar controllability to someone with. The lack of sensory is the disconnect you've refused to acknowledge. 

Just because a pilot would prefer to frequently trim to keep forces neutral doesn't mean you should force someone playing a sim to trim like mad because it otherwise results in unexpected movements of the stick they can't feel.

42 minutes ago, IronMike said:

I can only repeat what I said above: we won't change it. It's not up to debate now, and it won't be up to debate in the future. Our apologies if that leaves a handful of people disappointed, which of course is not our intention. 

 

44 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

You have broken this basic principle with your stick modelling for non-FFB users and made it impossible to smoothly and accurately set desired pitch attitudes without a whole heap of extra slop that shouldn't be there.

I get it, you were trying to convey a "feel", which is great. You have done similar things in the past with the enhanced buffeting and aural cues in the Tomcat. But this time you have actually broken the most primary flight control loop in a very real way.

 

If they are that adamant about sticking with this approach, we could develop a feedback solution of our own that nearly nullifies the effect using vjoy. I imagine we could model the response fairly easily through some fitting and then close up the gap with a PD controller to match the FFB experience.

[kablamoman]

16 minutes ago, FusRoPotato said:

If they are that adamant about sticking with this approach, we could develop a feedback solution of our own that nearly nullifies the effect using vjoy. I imagine we could model the response fairly easily through some fitting and then close up the gap with a PD controller to match the FFB experience.

Unfortunately, I don't think that would work, as the correction itself would disturb the trim neutral point once more and the model would output the resultant feel force as a change to the virtual stick/stab position all over again. It's the same reason we can't damp the wobble ourselves with the current model.

Edited May 27, 2024 by kablamoman