Impossible to do the AFCS start and get damper with Force Feedback, any clue ?

[CommandT]

For anyone who is still struggling with this - I found a solution that might work for some of you. I use FFBeast but it might help others who don't. 

In my case it turned out that having too much of a curve on the roll axis (in your DCS control settings) was the reason for the AFCS test fail. In my case a curve of 22 seems to be the maximum it will accept to have a successful AFCS test. 

Hope this helps! 

[MAXsenna]

10 minutes ago, CommandT said:

In my case it turned out that having too much of a curve on the roll axis (in your DCS control settings) was the reason for the AFCS test fail. In my case a curve of 22 seems to be the maximum it will accept to have a successful AFCS test. 

Well, the DCS doesn't support curves and changes in saturation for FFB. This has been debated to death. It might not be too noticeable always, especially with newer hardware/telemetry software. Any change you do must be done in the hardware's software, and not in DCS. Can easily be observed when trimming helicopters. Unless, ED changed something the past nine months, which I highly doubt.

Just think about it. Let's say you don't use any telemetry, and you apply curves/saturation. How will the FFB, (basically trimming), effects know how far to move the stick when curves do not align with the linearity of the FFB effects? That's why a lot of modules when coded incorrectly for FFB, especially helicopters, don't match the trimming at all at release, (the Gazelle had issues before the new FM), and you get an exponentially trimmed aircraft. Easily observed in the Controls Indicator. 

Cheers! 

Edited yesterday at 06:23 PM by MAXsenna

[CommandT]

5 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

Well, the DCS doesn't support curves and changes in saturation for FFB. This has been debated to death. It might not be too noticeable always, especially with newer hardware/telemetry software. Any change you do must be done in the hardware's software, and not in DCS. Can easily be observed when trimming helicopters. Unless, ED changed something the past nine months, which I highly doubt.

Just think about it. Let's say you don't use any telemetry, and you apply curves/saturation. How will the FFB, (basically trimming), effects know how far to move the stick when curves do not align with the linearity of the FFB effects? That's why a lot of modules when coded incorrectly for FFB, especially helicopters, don't match the trimming at all at release, (the Gazelle had issues before the new FM), and you get an exponentially trimmed aircraft. Easily observed in the Controls Indicator. 

Cheers! 

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're taking about. 

FFB effects and DCS axis curves are completely independent of one another. The software for my FFB stick (FFBeast) doesn't even allow for an axis curve within the software as far as I'm aware and there is absolutely no issue with using a curve in the game settings whilst applying all the necessary spring and shaker effects to the joystick. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Either way, I'm just telling everyone what eliminated my AFCS bit test failure in the MiG-29 - reducing the curve in the roll axis in the DCS control settings.

Edited 20 hours ago by CommandT

[MAXsenna]

5 minutes ago, CommandT said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're taking about. 

That's fine, took me a little while to wrap my head around it when I first got FFB myself.

6 minutes ago, CommandT said:

FFB effects and DCS axis curves are completely independent of one another.

Forget about the gimmicky effects. I'm talking about trim. Unless something has changed in DCS, you can't use curves on an FFB base, because if you do, DCS can't apply the correct "trim" and movement on the stick, because DCS doesn't calculate/support it correctly. It might not be that noticeable in airplanes. But a few years ago, it was impossible to trim helicopters correctly if one used curves with FFB. 

I even had a nasty argument with another user that complained about it, and wanted to have DCS support it. 

You pretty much proved it yourself when reducing the curve. You seem to not have noticed before, so if this have been fixed in other modules, that's great, and then they will probably come around fixing it in the MiG-29 too.

 

[AeriaGloria]

43 minutes ago, CommandT said:

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're taking about. 

FFB effects and DCS axis curves are completely independent of one another. The software for my FFB stick (FFBeast) doesn't even allow for an axis curve within the software as far as I'm aware and there is absolutely no issue with using a curve in the game settings whilst applying all the necessary spring and shaker effects to the joystick. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.

Either way, I'm just telling everyone what eliminated my AFCS bit test failure in the MiG-29 - reducing the curve in the roll axis in the DCS control settings.

Look at it this way, if you set the curve in DCS, the in game stick position and FFB stick position won’t match. 
 

Let’s say I fly a helicopter with force trim. I trim left, but becuase I set up a curve in DCS, it thinks after trimming the stick should be closer to center, so my FFB moves away from the spot I trimmed which it shouldn’t do. 
 

If you set it up in independent software for the stick it should be fine 

[MAXsenna]

@AeriaGloria Thank you, that was a simpler explanation than mine!  

[CommandT]

11 hours ago, MAXsenna said:

@AeriaGloria Thank you, that was a simpler explanation than mine!  

Ah yes, sorry i understand what you mean now. I though this was fairly obvious. Creating curves on an FFB system is highly compromised in many ways and yes, the trim envelope can be reduced for this reason. However what I was trying to say in my first post is that there is still no issue or conflict with using DCS control curves and using a force feedback system. You just have to deal with the compromises. And having a slightly reduced trim envelope in many aircraft is a non-issue. Hence I used curves in the MiG-29 since my stick extension is about 1/3 of the control stick in the real aircraft. 

And yes, the reason the AFCS failed is as a result of the stick trimming but running out of available trim deflection on the real stick during the bit test, hence not meeting the requirements of the module's AFCS stick trim deflection in the game. I'm just telling everyone who is using a FFB stick, in layman's terms - having too much curve on the control axis may be the reason for the AFCs bit test fail, like it was in my case.