Wing snap vs joystick?

[RustBelt]

So what you’re saying is, you want DCS to airbus you because it’s easier than learning what not to do. 
 

And yes, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess some of that 15,000hrs was in an airbus. Because only FBW drivers can’t understand how you have to fly a sim different to a real plane.

[VZ_342]

2 hours ago, RustBelt said:

Unless you’re flying with a floor mounted stick with an extension, and progressive springs or FFB, it’s inherently unrealistic whatever you do. Desktop joysticks are a compromise of convenience. They, not the sim, is the problem. As someone with a seat mounted FFB stick, faked in “damping” would be extremely obnoxious. Because I did learn the feel to fly the plane as it’s built. With my elbow and shoulder, not my wrist. 
 

if you’re using the wrong tool for the job, don’t expect great results. 

LOL..."elbow and shoulder"? So flying a sim for you is more like full contact wrestling? If you have real-world experience in the F-5E, you can legitimately say you "fly the plane as it's built"...as it is, you have learned how to fly the DCS interpretation of the F-5 "as it's built" which is not accurate to the actual aircraft (based on following the "wing snapping" issue for awhile now).

 

I also have learned how to fly the DCS F-5....with light loads on the wings, minimal g's when climbing OR turning (never both at the same time), gentle pullout after a dive, seat-mounted stick, a 4" extension and a gentle touch to the stick. I'd rather be able to fly the F-5 hard and fast, like the A-4 or F-4....but that's not possible at this time.

Incidentally, what curves do you use?

Edited December 15, 2024 by VZ_342

[Cab]

8 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

So what you’re saying is, you want DCS to airbus you because it’s easier than learning what not to do. 
 

And yes, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess some of that 15,000hrs was in an airbus. Because only FBW drivers can’t understand how you have to fly a sim different to a real plane.

So what you’re say is, the current state of the F-5 is accurate and only requires a “pilot” to know how to fly it correctly?

[RustBelt]

If you have a truly set up center stick cockpit, sit in it and thing about what your arm is doing. You have a lever action with your forearm using your lap as a fulcrum. While fine detail movement is made by fingertip, your over all control is using that fulcrum pivot, which engages both your elbow and shoulder in coordination. 
 

On a desk mounted stick you only have your wrist for gross movements. With a very short throw. Other than an F-16, that’s not realistic, and even an F-16 is weird because it’s so deeply FBW. 
 

The F-5 in DCS is modeling the full control mechanism. So translating a 15 degree displacement on a desk joystick to a full control displacement in the simulation. 
 

Ypu say you can’t fly hard and fast in the F-5, but i’ve never had a problem with that. Pulling harder isn’t how you fly “fast” smooth is fast in an old plane like the F-5. 
 

I suspect as people transition to FFB like I have, this “problem” will go away with zero intervention by ED. 

2 minutes ago, Cab said:

So what you’re say is, the current state of the F-5 is accurate and only requires a “pilot” to know how to fly it correctly?

It’s closer to accurate yes. Especially with an FFB stick and an extension. I think too many people start in Hornets and Vipers then don’t understand why in a non FBW 3rd gen fighter their regular hamfisting doesn’t work. It’s the Fidelity vs Functionality compromise. Coupled with the fact that non FFB leaves you with no feel for what the plane is doing. And so the argument now is ED needs to basically fake FBW control damping to correct for FBW flyers.

[Cab]

4 minutes ago, RustBelt said:

It’s closer to accurate yes. Especially with an FFB stick and an extension. I think too many people start in Hornets and Vipers then don’t understand why in a non FBW 3rd gen fighter their regular hamfisting doesn’t work. It’s the Fidelity vs Functionality compromise. Coupled with the fact that non FFB leaves you with no feel for what the plane is doing. And so the argument now is ED needs to basically fake FBW control damping to correct for FBW flyers.

No it isn’t but I know there’s no convincing you of that. Thankfully, ED disagrees with you too, as they’re actively looking to change (read: improve) it. So, by all means, keep compensating for a flawed flight control  model. However, I and others look forward to further improvements. 

[RustBelt]

All I gotta say, is I hope they make it a switchable thing, because I don’t want some crappy control input delay forced on me like the crappy OS makers sim does.

[MAXsenna]

All I gotta say, is I hope they make it a switchable thing, because I don’t want some crappy control input delay forced on me like the crappy OS makers sim does.

9L is getting his FFB, so I'm not worried at all!

Sent from my SM-A536B using Tapatalk

[IvanK]

On 12/12/2024 at 5:54 PM, NineLine said:

Hmmm, I am not sure I agree with this 100%, while it's true the Artificial Feel system will help this issue, and we do need it, I am not sure practicing and learning to have softer hands makes it 'extremely unrealistic'. The biggest missing part of any flight simulator is not having that butt in the sear or feedback from the stick. I have a feeling when the Artificial Feel system is introduced we will have people complaining about the less responsiveness in the stick, we have seen this when the Bf-109K-4 came out and the controls freezing was modelled. 

The Spitfire is very similar in that you can pull crazy hard on the stick and ruin your day, in this case its true to life and you need very gentle hands in the real thing to not over do it on the stick. 

Now back to Bucic's track, what I saw were 'extremely unrealistic' control movements. No way a pilot is pulling like this in any scenario, I understand it was trying to prove a point, but we already know that the Artificial Feel system isn't there and the limits imposed there are not in place, until then you need to monitor your Gs and how heavy your hands are on the stick. Instantaneous G is much worse than smooth onset and that is what I see in the track. 

One of my many test flights here if anyone is interested. I used Bucic's track and took control, things to keep in mind, its an air start, 100% fuel at the start, 150G centerline tank, full and of course missiles on the wing tips. This cuts down the limits set in the manual as well, as you can see I feel like I put a lot of Gs on the wings before it finally broke. 

 

 (Slight thread drift) Really interesting video. Also shows that weird Attitude Indicator flick in roll in the region of 20deg Nose up Nose Down. Bucic mentions this in his AI bug thread Dec 6

Seems to me its like the normal "Controlled precession" you see approaching the vertical but in this case its happening inappropriately.  (Reported in the Beta testers forum with TRK)

Edited December 15, 2024 by IvanK

[VZ_342]

Fwiw, my TM warthog has a +/- 80⁰ total range of motion (pitch)...40⁰ forward, 40⁰ aft.  I am looking forward to replacing it with an FFB stick.

 

I also flew a bit today with  the flaps in the "locked up" position, I was able to consistently hit 8g's with no breaking of wings (2x mk82, 2xFFAR rocket pods). F-5 upgrade.

[Bucic]

I switched to 100% 1:1 config for both axes and it's clear to me the "full ailerons AFTER commanding high G" is the trigger here.* Trying to break the wings using concurrent pitch+roll doesn't have nearly as strong effect as far as the risk of damage goes.

I won't be exploring this any further without access to higher sampling rate telemetry data.

 

*with prior pitch down being a strong catalyst, which is understandable

[=475FG= Dawger]

9 hours ago, RustBelt said:

So what you’re saying is, you want DCS to airbus you because it’s easier than learning what not to do. 
 

And yes, I’m going to go out on a limb and guess some of that 15,000hrs was in an airbus. Because only FBW drivers can’t understand how you have to fly a sim different to a real plane.

Never flew a single FBW aircraft. Airbus or otherwise. 
The only Boeing I ever flew was the B-17.

 

And you illustrate my point beautifully 

“can’t understand how you have to fly a sim different to a real plane”

That is the very definition of unrealistic simulation. You can hop in several DCS modules and fly it like the real thing and get the same behaviors  

In the F-5, this will result in very unrealistic results  

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2024 by =475FG= Dawger

[Cab]

15 hours ago, RustBelt said:

All I gotta say, is I hope they make it a switchable thing, because I don’t want some crappy control input delay forced on me like the crappy OS makers sim does.

Their solution will have to be judged on its own merits. Might be better, might not. We'll have to wait and see.

[BalkanBattler]

On 12/12/2024 at 11:28 AM, NineLine said:

Yes, and the request for this system long predates your report, with the added focus on the F-5 I am using every bit of sway I have to get it done. 

Thank you for not giving up on the F-5 even after the remaster release, this module is so close to perfection we're just a few quality of life improvements from being the absolute best first module to buy in DCS. Seriously - thank you!

[Bucic]

6 hours ago, BalkanBattler said:

Thank you for not giving up on the F-5 even after the remaster release, this module is so close to perfection we're just a few quality of life improvements from being the absolute best first module to buy in DCS. Seriously - thank you!

Ditto! Plus a perfect module for working dads

[VZ_342]

After reading about the various... estimations...in the upcoming F-35 flight model, I can't help but think that introducing a little bit of estimating in the F-5's flight model to help with the wing snapping behavior is a reasonable fix for this fatal flaw.

 

After all, the F-5 doesn't have a history of this behavior, and to have it snap at a higher g factor (say, between 10.5 and 12.5, depending on loadout) could be done, and no one would shed a tear.

[Bucic]

@Flappie@NineLine There's a comprehensive mildoc on F-5E fatigue evaluation program. Do you have it? It goes by ADA032403.pdf. While usefulness of a fatigue-related infor for DCS is low, the document has a section summarizing past STATIC TESTING done on the F-5E.

EDIT:

I also have a model spin-tunnel investigation for spin recovery, including the effect of external stores. It's AF-AM-422 or NASA TM SX-3556.

 

Just going through my library...

 

Edited February 8 by Bucic

[Flappie]

9 hours ago, Bucic said:

@Flappie@NineLine There's a comprehensive mildoc on F-5E fatigue evaluation program. Do you have it? It goes by ADA032403.pdf. While usefulness of a fatigue-related infor for DCS is low, the document has a section summarizing past STATIC TESTING done on the F-5E.

Yes, we used it to have devs increase the G tolerances of the structure (11G instead of 10 G). But that is not enough. What we really need now is the implementation of the stick "artificial feel". It is requested.

[Bucic]

1 hour ago, Flappie said:

Yes, we used it to have devs increase the G tolerances of the structure (11G instead of 10 G). But that is not enough. What we really need now is the implementation of the stick "artificial feel". It is requested.

Understood. I edited the previous post to also include a document on spin recovery investigation.

I like how one of the docs called F-5E an air superiority fighter. I understand some may chuckle at it but the more I learn about the plane the less funny it sounds. The shark nose, LERX, handling studies, safeguards...

Back on topic:

I've noticed recently that the horizontal stabiliser movement rate is some twice faster for pitch down, compared to pitch up. I have a drawing of the horstab assembly but I'm not sure whether the behaviour stems purely from the geometries or is 8t an internal implementation done inside the end hydraulic actuator unit.

[nairb121]

On 2/9/2025 at 5:30 AM, Bucic said:

I like how one of the docs called F-5E an air superiority fighter. I understand some may chuckle at it but the more I learn about the plane the less funny it sounds. The shark nose, LERX, handling studies, safeguards...

It's a perfectly fair assessment - and in fact I'd argue that the F-5 is one of the last purpose-built dogfighters: as other 3rd gens pivoted toward BVR capability. it maintained a primary air-to-air role purely within visual range.

Edited February 10 by nairb121

[pgn]

I have a desk mounted Winwing Viper stick, and the wing breaks so often that I can't use the F-5. It's such a nice plane and flight model that I flew it lot in the old version, even with all the old bugs like the RWR and the gun dispersion and the wing snapping; and then I paid again for the updated version and its still not really usable without a FFB stick.

I understand the debate here about the impossibility of reproducing real flight forces, but unless the goal is to only develop for FFB users the current system does not simulate realistic behaviour. I have no real life flight experience but the point Dawger makes about break turns is exactly the problem I have. Roll the plane to 90 degrees and then pull back with any amount of sharpness and the wing breaks. I am careful with aileron roll and never disable the deflection limiter -- it's simple sharp pitch changes that do it. 

I fly lots of other modules including the spitfire and its only the F-5 where the issue is this bad. There might be some interacting problem with the flaps/slats too, from what I can read it was usual to leave the flap thumbswich in auto mode. This suggestion seems great: