Special Options FFB tuning

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Hello,

Can ED follow the example of 3rd parties such as Aerges and HeatBlur please, and add options for FFB tuning? Particularly separate force/strength options for pitch and roll would be very welcome.
With the default settings, (perceived) roll strength is too high compared to pitch. I personally prefer to keep roll forces at 50% compared to pitch (at 100%).

Thanks!

[AeriaGloria]

Yes in reality, roll is much weaker then pitch, by about 50% 

[Cgjunk2]

The forces felt on the stick are an important part of aircraft development IRL.  If in reality the Fulcrum’s stick forces in roll are 50% of the forces in pitch, then it seems that FFB is not accurately modeled at present.  Has anybody else noticed heavier roll than pitch?  

  @Raven (Elysian Angel) I wonder, if your settings have something inverted?   I don’t have FFB yet, so I couldn’t guess if it might be inverted, but it seems odd that ED would have forces modeled exactly backwards to real life. 

As an aside, I’m hoping for a time in the near future where developers will use existing documentation to develop accurate stick force models, as much as they do for developing accurate flight models.   I’m not referring to vibration or gun effects (those are nice as an addition), but actual intentionally-designed or naturally-occuring control forces felt by the pilot throughout the flight regime.  Flight models and stick force models go hand-in-hand, and it would be a terrible loss (from a flight sim accuracy perspective) to continually expect the end-user and back-end software to create force profiles that that are essentially guesses as to the how the stick responds in the real airplane.

[AeriaGloria]

The controls aren’t impacted by air flow. But there are graphs and numbers showing strength depending on deflection and ARU and COC-3. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

No, my forces are not inverted - but there is indeed a suspicious lack of follow-up posts by other people and I doubt I’m the only one who flies MiG-29 with a FFB base.

The issue can be mitigated (not eliminated) by using a dedicated profile just for this one module, but this is generally something I’d like to avoid doing.

[Hiob]

1 hour ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

No, my forces are not inverted - but there is indeed a suspicious lack of follow-up posts by other people and I doubt I’m the only one who flies MiG-29 with a FFB base.

The issue can be mitigated (not eliminated) by using a dedicated profile just for this one module, but this is generally something I’d like to avoid doing.

Hey, which FFB-device are you using?

I just checked the telemetry for my Rhino, and without TelemFFB running and no curves applied the force is equal in all directions. 

No judgement, just adding a data point.

I happen to have a flattened force response curve enabled for roll in my default profile.
Therefore I didn't even notice an issue in the first place. 

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

On 10/14/2025 at 8:58 PM, Hiob said:

Hey, which FFB-device are you using?

Same as you - see signature  
The perceived actual forces are equal in all directions for me too, the way I currently have my profile set up and considering the physical location of my grip and base.
I'm not saying it's an issue - just personal preference: I prefer roll forces to be lower than pitch.

Originally I had set up my physical hardware similar to where they are in the real cockpit: with the grip further up: that's when you really notice and the relatively high roll forces become annoying.
But I regularly tinker with both the physical location of my controls and with software settings, and the changes I made since the module released makes this far less of a bother than it originally was. But I'd still like the roll forces to be a bit lower, especially if it's also like that in the real aircraft. So the request of this thread stands  

*edit*
As a bit of a side note, I'd like to add that I'm really happy we have displaced neutral by default, without the need for a special option (such as the one the F-5 has). I wish more modules had this feature, even those who don't have FFB support (looking at you, Hornet!).

Edited Tuesday at 08:16 PM by Raven (Elysian Angel)
Silly mistake

[Hiob]

11 hours ago, Raven (Elysian Angel) said:

Same as you - see signature  
The perceived forces are equal in all directions for me too, the way I currently have my profile set up and considering the physical location of my grip and base.
I'm not saying it's an issue - just personal preference: I prefer roll forces to be lower than pitch.

Originally I had set up my physical hardware similar to where they are in the real cockpit: with the grip further up: that's when you really notice and the relatively high roll forces become annoying.
But I regularly tinker with both the physical location of my controls and with software settings, and the changes I made since the module released makes this far less of a bother than it originally was. But I'd still like the roll forces to be a bit lower, especially if it's also like that in the real aircraft. So the request of this thread stands  

*edit*
As a bit of a side note, I'd like to add that I'm really happy we have displaced neutral by default, without the need for a special option (such as the one the F-5 has). I wish more modules had this feature, even those who don't have FFB support (looking at you, Hornet!).

I don't like high roll forces either. Even if the objective force is the same in all directions, laws of physics (leverage) and anatomy results in subjectively much higher forces in roll.
That's why I applied a flatter force gradient in my (fixed wing) default profile for my Rhino.
That said, elaborate FFB settings like e.g. the Phantom offers would be much appreciated.  

[Raven (Elysian Angel)]

Just to add some evidence to this thread, I present you with the forces that get loaded into my Rhino as reported by the VPforce FFB Configurator software (this is separate from the telemetry software, for those who don't know).

You can see my user-configured damper/friction settings (roll lower than pitch), and that I have inertia disabled. You can also see that spring forces are exactly the same for the X and Y axes (4096 for X and 4096 for Y), resulting in higher perceived roll forces compared to pitch forces (because of how human anatomy works). I would love to have a slider in the Special Options that allows to set roll forces to 50%, which would result in 2048 for X and 4096 for Y - which is much more comfortable.

*edit*
For those who don't know, I'll add that Spring forces are determined by the module maker and are thus controlled by the application, in this case DCS - which is why "Spring (100%)" is greyed out.

(Centre position in Y is reported as -1271 because the MiG-29 module supports displaced centre, which is a very good thing!)

Edited Tuesday at 06:52 PM by Raven (Elysian Angel)

[muffler]

В 18.09.2025 в 03:26, AeriaGloria сказал:

Yes in reality, roll is much weaker then pitch, by about 50% 

Actually, the load mechanism of the stick has followed characteristics. Roll axis has 6,2 kg. load in full deflection left or right. Pitch axis has 5,7 kg for full pullback, and 6,7 kg. for full forward position ( Kp=1, trimm=0). And 9,6 kg pull / 12.2 kg push accordingly with Kp=max. Kp=max on transonic Mach at low altitude.

Edited Wednesday at 10:44 AM by muffler