Elevator trim too aggressive

[Zabuzard]

Trim changes the lever length of the bellows system. The bellows pull the stick aft based on airspeed, while the bobweights push it forward based on G. On ground, you have an extreme value of speed 0 on the bellows. So regardless of what you do, the bobweights will always push the stick forward and trimming has (almost) no effect. Essentially, suppose you would set max trim, max times zero is still zero. The output from the bellows is zero. The bobweights have no antagonist and can apply their full force.

(Technically its not fully zero, since it works based on pressure and not "speed", but it kinda goes in the same direction regardless.)

[Super Grover]

6 hours ago, jojo said:

@Zabuzard

Testing the trim system on the ground.
I have no idea if it's the intended behavior, but the trim inputs on the Phantom are wild !

The behaviour from your video is 100% correct and intended.

[jojo]

1 hour ago, Super Grover said:

The behaviour from your video is 100% correct and intended.

OK then, worst flight control system ever. I hope the guys who designed that were sentenced to life prison 

[=475FG= Dawger]

40 minutes ago, jojo said:

OK then, worst flight control system ever. I hope the guys who designed that were sentenced to life prison 

If only ignorance were criminal…

[YSIAD_RIP]

39 minutes ago, jojo said:

OK then, worst flight control system ever. I hope the guys who designed that were sentenced to life prison 

The brilliant engineers that designed the systems are likely all in their late 80's and or well into their 90's or already in Heaven. 

• Test the Trim while in slow flight and you will see that the simulated bellows effect with air moving over the surface of the elevators is more of what you would expect. 
• The Coding of this Heatblur Phantom 2 by is on another level of detail that I would not have ever thought of. 
• The only way to get a better feel for what they have done is to have a Force Feedback stick..   I enjoy my Win Wing Orion 2 but Force Feedback is the way of the future. 

Cheers

[jojo]

1 hour ago, YSIAD_RIP said:

The brilliant engineers that designed the systems are likely all in their late 80's and or well into their 90's or already in Heaven. 

• Test the Trim while in slow flight and you will see that the simulated bellows effect with air moving over the surface of the elevators is more of what you would expect. 
• The Coding of this Heatblur Phantom 2 by is on another level of detail that I would not have ever thought of. 
• The only way to get a better feel for what they have done is to have a Force Feedback stick..   I enjoy my Win Wing Orion 2 but Force Feedback is the way of the future. 

Cheers

I’m complaining about the system because it’s a pain to use at landing AoA. So yes I did try at slow speed.

If it’s an accurate simulation, so be it. But there were better trim systems in the same time era.

I have a Virpil WarBRD base and it’s already expensive enough as it is…

[=475FG= Dawger]

19 minutes ago, jojo said:

I’m complaining about the system because it’s a pain to use at landing AoA. So yes I did try at slow speed.

If it’s an accurate simulation, so be it. But there were better trim systems in the same time era.

I have a Virpil WarBRD base and it’s already expensive enough as it is…

You are likely trying to fly with trim, which will cause all sorts of problems. Stop screwing with the trim and fly the plane. 

[kablamoman]

6 hours ago, jojo said:

OK then, worst flight control system ever. I hope the guys who designed that were sentenced to life prison

And made that much worse because Heatblur thought we shouldn't be able to hold the stick in place (you know, fly the plane by manipulating the controls) unless we have FFB hardware:

[Hunter2.1]

14 hours ago, kablamoman said:

And made that much worse because Heatblur thought we shouldn't be able to hold the stick in place (you know, fly the plane by manipulating the controls) unless we have FFB hardware:

 

I think the no comments from developers about this graph, even on 2 threads, says a lot) it's revolution, Johnny 

[Super Grover]

1 hour ago, Hunter2.1 said:

I think the no comments from developers about this graph, even on 2 threads, says a lot) it's revolution, Johnny 

I wrote in the other channel that the animation arguments are NOT directly related to the actual stick position and shouldn't be used for any aircraft behaviour comparison. The chart above was created after my post, but the animation arguments were still used to plot it. I can't forbid anyone from having an opinion about that plot, but the methodology of analysing the controls presented is incorrect. As promised, I'll prepare an in-depth explanation of what we do and how we do it, but the queue of more urgent tasks is long, so that it may take a bit longer.

[kablamoman]

14 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

I wrote in the other channel that the animation arguments are NOT directly related to the actual stick position and shouldn't be used for any aircraft behaviour comparison.

What a coincidence then, that the stab and aircraft attitude bounce around and oscillate along with it -- not to mention the fact that the folks with FFB setups can easily control this behavior by simply gripping the stick and holding it in place.

Edited June 3, 2024 by kablamoman

[Super Grover]

2 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

I suppose it's just coincidence that the stab and aircraft attitude bounce around and oscillate along with it then.

I don't know. I was taught that false implies everything and anything. IMO, it's just a waste of everyone's time to conclude on incorrect assumptions.

[kablamoman]

40 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

I wrote in the other channel that the animation arguments are NOT directly related to the actual stick position and shouldn't be used for any aircraft behaviour comparison.

 

As depicted on the chart, we see this exact same oscillatory behavior on the aircraft itself when returning the stick to neutral:

 

 

[Super Grover]

I'm sorry, but this is borderline trollish.

[kablamoman]

10 minutes ago, Super Grover said:

I'm sorry, but this is borderline trollish.

How is it trollish to point out that the behavior of the aircraft is obviously showing that the stab and the stick are not under direct control of the pilot in the non-FFB implementation? The virtual pilot releases grip strength and allows the stick/stab, and thus the entire aircraft to oscillate freely about the neutral point in pitch.

You guys keep asserting that the effect is only a visual artifact of the stick animation, but it is clearly not.

I believe it is a pretty severe oversight. I paid for the module just like everybody else posting in the bug forum with feedback and suggestions.

 

Edited June 3, 2024 by kablamoman

[Super Grover]

17 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

How is it trollish to point out that the behavior of the aircraft is obviously showing that the stab and the stick are not under direct control of the pilot in the non-FFB implementation? The virtual pilot releases grip strength and allows the stick/stab, and thus the entire aircraft to oscillate freely about the neutral point in pitch.

You guys keep asserting that the effect is only a visual artifact of the stick animation, but it is clearly not.

I believe it is a pretty severe oversight. I paid for the module just like everybody else posting in the bug forum with feedback and suggestions.

 

 

I'm sorry you are disappointed with the module. However, that disappointment can't justify spreading misinformation. If you believe that we did anything incorrectly, please get in touch with our customer support with your order number to check what options are available for you.

[panpan9133]

36 minutes ago, kablamoman said:

How is it trollish to point out that the behavior of the aircraft is obviously showing that the stab and the stick are not under direct control of the pilot in the non-FFB implementation? The virtual pilot releases grip strength and allows the stick/stab, and thus the entire aircraft to oscillate freely about the neutral point in pitch.

You guys keep asserting that the effect is only a visual artifact of the stick animation, but it is clearly not.

I believe it is a pretty severe oversight. I paid for the module just like everybody else posting in the bug forum with feedback and suggestions.

 

 

Do you unload the Gs by actually easing your hand towards the center position of your stick or you just let it return on its own ? 

[kablamoman]

1 hour ago, panpan9133 said:

Do you unload the Gs by actually easing your hand towards the center position of your stick or you just let it return on its own ? 

This is the crux of the issue. In the non-FFB implementation every return to neutral is treated as if the virtual pilot has simply let go of the stick when it's returned to your physical axis center. In the video, the physical stick was held in place, and not allowed to "bounce", but the virtual response is as if it was.

There is no way to "ease" your stick back as you would in real life, supporting the increased load of the stick until back at the trimmed stab position. Try as you might with your physical joystick, the simulation does not allow for it, and the stick, stab, and airplane along with it will bounce a bit in pitch before settling with every change in load. Conversely, the FFB implementation, as I understand it, allows for proper grip of the stick and thus control of the aircraft.

This is also the reason for the strange "wet noodle" behavior of the stick when simply trimming, or when the stick is "dead" due to nil airflow to the bellows, as when you are on the ground or at very low speed. The simulation pilot essentially neglects to hold the stick where it's commanded, despite control forces being negligible.

They did not mention that they made these pretty important (and wrong in my estimation) assumptions when telling the gentleman in this thread that it is "100% correct and intended" behavior in response to his obvious confusion.

1 hour ago, Super Grover said:

I'm sorry you are disappointed with the module. However, that disappointment can't justify spreading misinformation. If you believe that we did anything incorrectly, please get in touch with our customer support with your order number to check what options are available for you.

I'd really love to hear how you think I'm spreading misinformation. Any user can see the exact behavior I am talking about themselves by simply pulling and neutralizing the stick in the external camera, while they watch the stab wiggle all over the place. It is unfortunate that you seem to think I am pointing these things out in bad faith -- quite the contrary: I would love to see the module improve substantially in its non-FFB stick simulation.

If you could put in a good word for me with Steam Support, I'd appreciate it, as I've already tried 3 times for a return (with the full intention to re-purchase if these problems are ever addressed).

Edited June 3, 2024 by kablamoman

[CF104]

8 hours ago, kablamoman said:

This is the crux of the issue. In the non-FFB implementation every return to neutral is treated as if the virtual pilot has simply let go of the stick when it's returned to your physical axis center. In the video, the physical stick was held in place, and not allowed to "bounce", but the virtual response is as if it was.

There is no way to "ease" your stick back as you would in real life, supporting the increased load of the stick until back at the trimmed stab position. Try as you might with your physical joystick, the simulation does not allow for it, and the stick, stab, and airplane along with it will bounce a bit in pitch before settling with every change in load. Conversely, the FFB implementation, as I understand it, allows for proper grip of the stick and thus control of the aircraft.

This is also the reason for the strange "wet noodle" behavior of the stick when simply trimming, or when the stick is "dead" due to nil airflow to the bellows, as when you are on the ground or at very low speed. The simulation pilot essentially neglects to hold the stick where it's commanded, despite control forces being negligible.

They did not mention that they made these pretty important (and wrong in my estimation) assumptions when telling the gentleman in this thread that it is "100% correct and intended" behavior in response to his obvious confusion.

I'd really love to hear how you think I'm spreading misinformation. Any user can see the exact behavior I am talking about themselves by simply pulling and neutralizing the stick in the external camera, while they watch the stab wiggle all over the place. It is unfortunate that you seem to think I am pointing these things out in bad faith -- quite the contrary: I would love to see the module improve substantially in its non-FFB stick simulation.

If you could put in a good word for me with Steam Support, I'd appreciate it, as I've already tried 3 times for a return (with the full intention to re-purchase if these problems are ever addressed).

 

No disrespect meant, but this thread is about "Elevator trim too aggressive". If you feel strongly about this issue, it's probably best to start a new topic than to hijack this one. I, for one, would like to see this get back on topic.

Cheers,

John

[Hiob]

11 hours ago, kablamoman said:

This is the crux of the issue. In the non-FFB implementation every return to neutral is treated as if the virtual pilot has simply let go of the stick when it's returned to your physical axis center. In the video, the physical stick was held in place, and not allowed to "bounce", but the virtual response is as if it was.

There is no way to "ease" your stick back as you would in real life, supporting the increased load of the stick until back at the trimmed stab position. Try as you might with your physical joystick, the simulation does not allow for it, and the stick, stab, and airplane along with it will bounce a bit in pitch before settling with every change in load. Conversely, the FFB implementation, as I understand it, allows for proper grip of the stick and thus control of the aircraft.

This is also the reason for the strange "wet noodle" behavior of the stick when simply trimming, or when the stick is "dead" due to nil airflow to the bellows, as when you are on the ground or at very low speed. The simulation pilot essentially neglects to hold the stick where it's commanded, despite control forces being negligible.

They did not mention that they made these pretty important (and wrong in my estimation) assumptions when telling the gentleman in this thread that it is "100% correct and intended" behavior in response to his obvious confusion.

I'd really love to hear how you think I'm spreading misinformation. Any user can see the exact behavior I am talking about themselves by simply pulling and neutralizing the stick in the external camera, while they watch the stab wiggle all over the place. It is unfortunate that you seem to think I am pointing these things out in bad faith -- quite the contrary: I would love to see the module improve substantially in its non-FFB stick simulation.

If you could put in a good word for me with Steam Support, I'd appreciate it, as I've already tried 3 times for a return (with the full intention to re-purchase if these problems are ever addressed).

 

Duck, man…. your thread-capturing is really becoming old fast… 

so many walls of text in several threads (mostly opened for unrelated topics) for such a non issue. I just flew the Phantom without FFB yesterday (stick configured as „normal“ spring loaded stick and FFB turned off in game), blending option off. It worked just fine. Though I still suck at flying the brick (especially landing….)

On topic:

Yeah, trimming properly is tough. Not exactly sure if that is due to the trimming being too coarse or the Phantom being VERY pitch reactive to throttle settings.

(also I‘m under the impression that the Phantom won’t find a equilibrium on its own. If left alone, it will either become a lawn dart or a rocket (until it runs out of energy and becomes a brick again. It definitely isn’t suitable for hands-off flying (very similar to the Mosquito in this regard) - which is probably realistic. I don’t know).

Edited June 4, 2024 by Hiob

[=475FG= Dawger]

1 hour ago, Hiob said:

Duck, man…. your thread-capturing is really becoming old fast… 

so many walls of text in several threads (mostly opened for unrelated topics) for such a non issue. I just flew the Phantom without FFB yesterday (stick configured as „normal“ spring loaded stick and FFB turned off in game), blending option off. It worked just fine. Though I still suck at flying the brick (especially landing….)

On topic:

Yeah, trimming properly is tough. Not exactly sure if that is due to the trimming being too coarse or the Phantom being VERY pitch reactive to throttle settings.

(also I‘m under the impression that the Phantom won’t find a equilibrium on its own. If left alone, it will either become a lawn dart or a rocket (until it runs out of energy and becomes a brick again. It definitely isn’t suitable for hands-off flying (very similar to the Mosquito in this regard) - which is probably realistic. I don’t know).

 

I was climbing out a few days ago in the Phantom trimmed out when I accidentally ejected (moved that button )

 

The Phantom flew on its own for 10 minutes. It developed a 20 degree left bank almost immediately and did gentle circles alternating between 15 degrees nose high and 15 degrees nose low (the trimmed pitch was about 10 degrees nose high) until it finally smacked the ground  

Anecdotal for sure but not a wild untrimmable beast  

 

 

 

[Zabuzard]

It is correct that the Phantom oscillates and that the pitch trim is very sensitive, dynamically changes constantly and overall is very difficult to use in comparison to other aircraft.
(Explanation above, in the manual and in other threads on the topic).

The other topic contained in this thread isn't claiming that the simulation would be incorrect, but rather that they do not like the way we represent non-FFB behavior. I.e. that going hands off on the joystick means going hands off on the virtual stick and not "pilot, keep holding it in the center position, countering any force from the system".
For that topic, I would indeed prefer a separate thread for dicussion, if required :)

[Hunter2.1]

2 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

It is correct that the Phantom oscillates and that the pitch trim is very sensitive, dynamically changes constantly and overall is very difficult to use in comparison to other aircraft.
(Explanation above, in the manual and in other threads on the topic).

The other topic contained in this thread isn't claiming that the simulation would be incorrect, but rather that they do not like the way we represent non-FFB behavior. I.e. that going hands off on the joystick means going hands off on the virtual stick and not "pilot, keep holding it in the center position, countering any force from the system".
For that topic, I would indeed prefer a separate thread for dicussion, if required


 

sry for my english

 

1) Why FFB users can control stick on all maneuvers, but yours vir pilot can't do this? 
We speek not about animation of stick, but movements of plane on pitch channel.

2) Please can you show referencesto docs, or interview where any pilot of F-4 said, that this stick reaction is realistic?

3) Do you understand that this stick reaction, give for ffb users not same feels by flight model, that users with no ffb? 

4) What the problem - give for users two settings: 1) weak virtual pilot 2) strong virtual pilot who can hand stick more accurary in the center positon?

Edited June 4, 2024 by Hunter2.1

[Baldrick33]

7 hours ago, Zabuzard said:

The other topic contained in this thread isn't claiming that the simulation would be incorrect, but rather that they do not like the way we represent non-FFB behavior. I.e. that going hands off on the joystick means going hands off on the virtual stick and not "pilot, keep holding it in the center position, countering any force from the system".
For that topic, I would indeed prefer a separate thread for dicussion, if required
 

The discussion for non-FFB behaviour is here:

 

[jojo]

On 6/3/2024 at 3:57 AM, =475FG= Dawger said:

You are likely trying to fly with trim, which will cause all sorts of problems. Stop screwing with the trim and fly the plane. 

Already figured that out, but thanks.