Flight and damage models physics

[ATA_Vasilij]

I bring here new topic. BCS NOBODY has answered me from DEVs last time. 

 

PLS:

 

See this topic !

 

 

 

Today I again  am frustrated how the VyA23 cannon became poor after your super tuper updates.

FW190A3 continued to fly after 5s continues hits visible from head to tail of plane. from very close distance. Only visible holes in plane. And he continued in action like nothing happened.

REally ??

 

Whats wrong whith damage model of German Fw planes? Whats wrong with soviet cannons that both vyA23 and 37 mm cannon is soo poor against german planes?

 

PLS FIX

 

 

[-DED-Rapidus]

On 5/17/2021 at 7:01 AM, ATA_Vasilij said:

PLS FIX

What exactly?

[Garven]

Brief description: Additional info to add to the N28 post made by @=IRFC=Hellbender

 

Details:  Photos taken of portions of text from Appendix A in the book The Nieuport 28 America's First Fighter Authored by Theodore Hamady that contain information regarding Take off and stall speeds.

Spoiler

Summery: Lift off speed 45mph, climb out 60mph, power off Stall speed 38-42mph, Stall warning 50-55mph.

My personal observations so far from my brief testing is that the Power off stall speed with lightest loadout in game is 50mph (someone else should double check this).  45mph lift off and 60mph climb out is possible with lightest loadout.

Let me know if more details/photos are needed from the book.

Edited May 26, 2021 by 94th_Vernon

[Guest deleted@258843]

As mentioned in this thread: Typhoon FM: What's With The Pitch-Roll Coupling? - FM / AI discussion - IL-2 Sturmovik Forum (il2sturmovik.com)

 

Hotfix 4.602b did not seem to fix the issue and the odd behavior is still present.

 

Video example, with engine seized: TyphoonRoll (streamable.com)

 

 

Assuming it is a bug, I can think of two things that might result in the behavior we see:

 

• An error in modeling Gyroscopic Precession: Pitching up/down should result directly in adverse yaw (and maybe indirectly roll if this is not corrected). But perhaps the force value in the code is being mistakenly sent to the wrong axis -- ie. The Longitudinal Axis (roll) instead of the Normal Axis (yaw)?

 

• If there is a "damping" value associated with aerodynamic surfaces in the flight model, perhaps the left wing has been mistakenly given a higher value than the right, or vice versa? This could manifest itself as asymmetric lateral stability about the Longitudinal Axis (roll), and would explain why we get left roll when pitching up and right roll when pitching down -- in effect, the left wing would be harder to disturb, up or down, while the right side would not, resulting in a roll moment when pitching.

 

I'm kind of leaning towards the second as the behavior still exists even if the engine in the game is seized.

 

@-DED-Rapidus

 

(Hey rapidus, it was mentioned I should ping you)

Edited June 3, 2021 by Kablamoman

[-DED-Rapidus]

17 hours ago, Kablamoman said:

Assuming it is a bug, I can think of two things that might result in the behavior we see:

We looked again, listened and sniffed (c) - everything works fine. Please don't distract me and our engineers anymore)

[Guest deleted@258843]

uhh

 

I took time out of my day to try to help. Please have patience.

 

Maybe something was lost in the translation, so I will try with help from google:

 

TYPHOON:

 

тянуть прямую переднюю или заднюю часть на палке без бокового движения

 

вы увидите,

 

когда нос поднимается вверх есть перекат налево

 

когда нос опускается, идет крен вправо

 

самолеты так не работают

 

Может возникнуть рыскание, но крен неправильный

 

Спасибо

 

[bmh152abc]

Ok so I have a masters in aeronautical engineering, and I can promise you that no aircraft made after WWI (even civilian) will have a wing stall at 200mph and a 2g pull. So why does the P-47 in this game? The P-47 was, according to specs, blue prints, and testimony a very capable aircraft. I've written many papers on it. So why, in this game does it suck so bad? In my opinion, it unrealistically bleeds to much speed in turns, and the wing stalls good lord, a p47 at 150mph can pull 3g without wing stalling, I've flown one. pls fix this. It's not just the P-47, I've noticed unrealistic wing stalls in the P-51 as well.

 

PS I do love the game though, you guys rock. Can't wait for the C-47!

Edited June 6, 2021 by bmh152abc

[Tempus]

Anyone could explain how this Bf 109 G-14 tried to force my overshoot doing a flat scissors and it would being successful if it had not had a wing collapse? If anyone loose any detail on the video..... one tip: that 109 lost both ailerons and one horizontal stab 30 seconds before the record. 

 

https://youtu.be/gTs-rZlEJvY

 

 

[Nadelbaum]

Concentrating on P-47: What was your fuel load in the tests? 100%? 50%

[Bremspropeller]

10 hours ago, bmh152abc said:

Ok so I have a masters in aeronautical engineering, and I can promise you that no aircraft made after WWI (even civilian) will have a wing stall at 200mph and a 2g pull. So why does the P-47 in this game? The P-47 was, according to specs, blue prints, and testimony a very capable aircraft. I've written many papers on it. So why, in this game does it suck so bad? In my opinion, it unrealistically bleeds to much speed in turns, and the wing stalls good lord, a p47 at 150mph can pull 3g without wing stalling, I've flown one. pls fix this. It's not just the P-47, I've noticed unrealistic wing stalls in the P-51 as well.

 

PS I do love the game though, you guys rock. Can't wait for the C-47!

 

I think there has been a commando-raid by the RAF, stealing CL from the P-47 and allocating it to the Typhoon/ Tempest.

[Tempus]

14 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Anyone could explain how this Bf 109 G-14 tried to force my overshoot doing a flat scissors and it would being successful if it had not had a wing collapse? If anyone loose any detail on the video..... one tip: that 109 lost both ailerons and one horizontal stab 30 seconds before the record. 

 

 

[Hitcher]

3 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Anyone could explain how this Bf 109 G-14 tried to force my overshoot doing a flat scissors and it would being successful if it had not had a wing collapse? If anyone loose any detail on the video..... one tip: that 109 lost both ailerons and one horizontal stab 30 seconds before the record. 

The 109 was missing a horizontal stabilizer and flaps, it still had both ailerons. So roll authority was there and atleast half its elevator authority. Nothing seems too weird about that.

Edited June 6, 2021 by Hitcher

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, Hitcher said:

The 109 was missing a vertical stabilizer and flaps, it still had both ailerons. So roll authority was there and atleast half its elevator authority. Nothing seems too weird about that.

Point 1: Sorry for my error I said ailerons when I wanted to mean flaps.

Point 2: It didn't miss the rudder and your so called vertical stabilizer.... it lost one of the horizontal stab and its vertical actuator, not the same and you make errors as me, of course we're human, it seems.  What or where is the limit between weirdness or normality for you? Weirdness got any machine to measure it in any kind of units ? I guess it's an uncontable concept out of any physics related to fly.

Did you wonder why an A/C that have lost 2 flaps and a complete stab & a pitch actuator ( and full of holes) can pull nose up with enough pitching authority like if it were fresh to generate an amount of G's capable of  finally stress its half outter wing. Should be due the redundancy concept that you got at least 2 of almost everything in a plane (this is pure sarcasm for those who haven't caught it).

 

I really thanks you to answer it, but it has been the fastest answer but not the best. Anyway... tomorrow will be another day..... wait.... monday for almost everybody. Let's see if we would be lucky after today.... but I bet you anything I'm going to have a similar answer than the tempest guy ;))))))

[bmh152abc]

13 hours ago, Nadelbaum said:

Concentrating on P-47: What was your fuel load in the tests? 100%? 50%

 Fuel was set to 50%

[Hitcher]

1 hour ago, Tatata_Time said:

Point 1: Sorry for my error I said ailerons when I wanted to mean flaps.

Point 2: It didn't miss the rudder and your so called vertical stabilizer.... it lost one of the horizontal stab and its vertical actuator, not the same and you make errors as me, of course we're human, it seems.  What or where is the limit between weirdness or normality for you? Weirdness got any machine to measure it in any kind of units ? I guess it's an uncontable concept out of any physics related to fly.

Did you wonder why an A/C that have lost 2 flaps and a complete stab & a pitch actuator ( and full of holes) can pull nose up with enough pitching authority like if it were fresh to generate an amount of G's capable of  finally stress its half outter wing. Should be due the redundancy concept that you got at least 2 of almost everything in a plane (this is pure sarcasm for those who haven't caught it).

 

I really thanks you to answer it, but it has been the fastest answer but not the best. Anyway... tomorrow will be another day..... wait.... monday for almost everybody. Let's see if we would be lucky after today.... but I bet you anything I'm going to have a similar answer than the tempest guy ;))))))

yeah I meant horizontal stabilizer, sorry.

just from the footage it didn't seem to be pulling any crazy manoeuvres, looks like your p51 is going too fast and you're pulling to stop from overshooting while he's flying practically straight.

obviously I wasn't in the cockpit so I don't know exactly but just from what I saw. 

Edited June 6, 2021 by Hitcher

[-DED-Rapidus]

On 6/6/2021 at 11:39 AM, Tatata_Time said:

Anyone could explain how this Bf 109 G-14 tried to force my overshoot doing a flat scissors and it would being successful if it had not had a wing collapse? If anyone loose any detail on the video..... one tip: that 109 lost both ailerons and one horizontal stab 30 seconds before the record. 

 

https://youtu.be/gTs-rZlEJvY

 

 

The ailerons were in place, and the flaps were missing.

12 hours ago, Tatata_Time said:

Point 2: It didn't miss the rudder and your so called vertical stabilizer.... it lost one of the horizontal stab and its vertical actuator, not the same and you make errors as me, of course we're human, it seems.  What or where is the limit between weirdness or normality for you? Weirdness got any machine to measure it in any kind of units ? I guess it's an uncontable concept out of any physics related to fly.

The tail unit was rechecked in the previous update. Again, I appeal to everyone in this topic - do not resort here for the purpose of just writing something. 

[Tempus]

1 hour ago, -DED-Rapidus said:

The tail unit was rechecked in the previous update. Again, I appeal to everyone in this topic - do not resort here for the purpose of just writing something. 

Yes I wrote something...... SOMETHING RELATED WITH FM-DM If you don't want or you can't talk about that then we can stop here. Don't conduct the conversation to any point I haven't said a single word: the tail. THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE TAIL. 

 

Let's reconduct you to the main point cause I guess you're intentionally evading the problem: later 109 G-14 & K-4 models got a non significant lack of performance even after been heavily shot and I mean by lack of performance not only in the engine parameters, also in the airfoil surfaces authority, NOT ONLY IN THE DAMNED TAIL. So basically there's something wrong in the DM that you as an expert with access to the data should check out. If I could I would do by myself but it's not the case. So I need you help as a developer as you need my help as a customer. DEAL?

[-DED-Rapidus]

@Tatata_Time, to start, read the first message of the topic. This topic is for bug reports. Not for reasoning in any way, "maybe yes or maybe not".

[Tempus]

are you going to recheck anything bug or not bur or whatever you want to call it?

[Hitcher]

You should probably have a look at the DM soon though, HE shells are far too powerful and 12.7mm-20mm create too much drag/loss of lift per shot.

That's all I'll say, only bug reports allowed, goodbye. 

[ACG_Cass]

I'm surprised this hasn't been reported yet. The new Typhoon has a very pronounced roll to the left that needs to be corrected with huge amounts of aileron in order to keep the plane in from nosing into a dive. I can't find any documentation mentioning that this was an issue with the real life plane. Further yet, in it's sister plane the Tempest, there is no such characteristic. 

 

Test conditions: roll into an approximately 90 degree left turn and then pull the stick straight back

 

I did a secondary test using the ingame mouse control system to see how it would handle it. You can see in the replay that the AI is using significant right stick to deflect the ailerons in order to keep the aircraft from nosing into the ground.

 

This is also repeatable when the engine has seized so doesn't appear to be anything to do with propeller wash. The needle was kept centered during the turn as well to ensure no slipping. It appears to be a bug with the FM. 

 

 

Attached are tracks showing the behavior but it should be easily repeatable. 

 Tracks.zip

 

Aileron travel required to keep a constant level, left turn:

 

Tempest:

Typhoon:

Edited June 16, 2021 by ACG_Cass

[oc2209]

2 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

There are no changes significant between the two aircraft that would mean this attribute wasn't carried across. This is also repeatable when the engine has seized so doesn't appear to be anything to do with propeller wash. The needle was kept centered during the turn as well to ensure no slipping. It appears to be a bug with the FM.

 

I'm not blindly defending the FM, but if you think that showing screens of the Tempest/Typhoon wings side-by-side in any way supports your argument... it doesn't.

 

If you looked at a Zero's wingtip from above, could you tell that it has a slight twist to help stall characteristics? There are a lot of subtleties to wing shapes that aren't apparent to cursory looks.

 

The Typhoon wing was completely redesigned for the Tempest, to achieve different performance results at different altitudes. The handling will, naturally, also be different. Also, I have to think that having the giant gun protrusions must do something to handling in certain situations.

[ACG_Cass]

22 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

I'm not blindly defending the FM, but if you think that showing screens of the Tempest/Typhoon wings side-by-side in any way supports your argument... it doesn't.

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I've relabeled it now. The screens are to show the difference in aileron travel required to keep the aircraft in a level turn.

 

I don't know of an aircraft (anywhere) that exhibits this kind of behaviour to this extent. Tempest was used as a comparator as its the closest in the sim.

[oc2209]

14 minutes ago, ACG_Cass said:

 

Sorry if that wasn't clear, I've relabeled it now. The screens are to show the difference in aileron travel required to keep the aircraft in a level turn.

 

I don't know of an aircraft (anywhere) that exhibits this kind of behaviour to this extent. Tempest was used as a comparator as its the closest in the sim.

 

I see your point, but I still respectfully disagree with this statement of yours:

 

3 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

There are no changes significant between the two aircraft that would mean this attribute wasn't carried across.

 

This statement simply isn't accurate. There are significant wing changes. So showing that the planes must use different aileron forces in turns still doesn't prove anything, as we're dealing with two different wing shapes/designs, with different weights/load factors, etc.

 

I'm not trying to speak for the devs, but I would guess that they'd reply in a similar manner. If you want to prove there's something wrong with the Typhoon's handling, go about it another way. That's my suggestion.

Edited June 16, 2021 by oc2209

[ACG_Cass]

26 minutes ago, oc2209 said:

This statement simply isn't accurate.

Granted and I've removed that statement.

 

The significant wing changes would need to have corrected a huge imbalance in the aircrafts flights characteristics.

 

Tempest was chosen as it is the closest comparator. There is no WW2 aircraft that I am aware of, modelled in any flight sim that exhibits behaviour this severe.

 

For it to require almost half right stick, just to keep a flat level, 90 degree turn and then require none when in a right hand turn is clearly a bug in the FM.

Edited June 16, 2021 by ACG_Cass

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

5 hours ago, ACG_Cass said:

Granted and I've removed that statement.

 

The significant wing changes would need to have corrected a huge imbalance in the aircrafts flights characteristics.

 

Tempest was chosen as it is the closest comparator. There is no WW2 aircraft that I am aware of, modelled in any flight sim that exhibits behaviour this severe.

 

For it to require almost half right stick, just to keep a flat level, 90 degree turn and then require none when in a right hand turn is clearly a bug in the FM.

Agreed. My friend and I noticed this behavior as well with the Typhoon. It requires a lot of right stick when pulling the elevator and left stick during negative elevator maneuvers. Would be good to hear from the devs if this is just a feature of the Typhoon’s design or a bug with the flight model.

[HawkerMkIII_]

I've had the same issue as well were you need right stick to maintain level while pulling up and vice-versa.

[NIK14]

Nowhere in the handling section of the Typhoon manual is it stated that the plane rolls significantly to the left when it's pitched up, nor is there anything about it rolling right when pitched down.

 

Can the developers please have a look at this anomaly?

Edited June 20, 2021 by LukeFF

[Guest deleted@258843]

An update to this:

 

Typhoon rolling tendency seems to be related to asymmetric fuel weight distribution between the two wings:

 

• At minimum (10%) fuel load out the rolling tendency is absent
• At 100% fuel and clean the aircraft is severely port-side heavy

 

With 100% fuel, the left (port side) wing has sufficient inertia that the aircraft rolls left when pitching up, and right when pitching down.

 

The asymmetry in fuel weight is so severe that with only a single 500 lb. bomb attached to the starboard (right) wing the roll tendency is eliminated.

 

Devs: Please double check the fuel tank weight values and/or tank lateral moment arms to ensure that the correct weight values are being expressed in the correct location.

[Siv5122]

Moved from Steel Birds thread:

 

I may have run into a bug, at least given everything I know.. 

 

I was doing the first mission's ground attack, and on one pass my left wing cut in half. There was no AA left, it had all been killed and I didn't hear or feel any hits, and I wasn't even turning, so there was no reason for my wing to come off. Was wondering if anyone else experienced this. 

 

Edit: Tried the mission again, wing did not come off, still interested to see if anyone else had an issue.

Edited August 11, 2021 by Siv5122

[Pea_Shooter]

When Albatross horizontal stabilizer is shot off the elevator remains intact.

[AEthelraedUnraed]

Brief description: Invincible static objects
Detailed description, conditions: The object scripts of some objects (mostly BoBP) link to the wrong CollisionBody. Take for instance luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_small2.txt:

CollisionBody="graphics/Blocks/Church_eu_small2.col"

This file doesn't exist as it's located in a different folder. The proper location would be "graphics/Buildings/Church_eu_small2.col". This causes the game to not register damage to these objects.

The bug exists on at least the following assets:

Spoiler

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_big.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_mid1.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_mid2.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_mid3.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_small1.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\church_eu_small2.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\churchred.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\churchyellow.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\townhall_eu_1.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\townhall_eu_2.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\windmill_eu_1.txt

luascripts\worldobjects\blocks\windmill_eu_2.txt

There may be more though.
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs): The below screenshot shows windmill_eu_2 (left) and church_eu_small2 (right). The top two objects use their original script files, the bottom ones a custom one modified by me to point to the correct .col file. The durability value is set to 1000 and a bomb has just been dropped right in the center. It can be seen that the top objects completely ignore the bomb damage. The bottom objects are destroyed, as they should be.

[-DED-Rapidus]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:58 PM, AEthelraedUnraed said:

Brief description: Invincible static objects

Thank you we will check it out.

[No.23_Triggers]

Brief description:

 

Spad VII (150hp) incorrect behaviour at flutter speed 

Detailed description, conditions:

The Spad VII 150hp demonstrates extremely exaggerated shaking when at flutter speeds. Instead of only surfaces fluttering, the entire aeroplane violently rocks. It appears that with higher throttle input this problem worsens, to the point where the aircraft will rip its own wings off. This does not occur with any other Flying Circus aircraft.  

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):
 

 

Edited August 26, 2021 by US93_Larner

[-DED-Rapidus]

On 8/26/2021 at 9:51 PM, US93_Larner said:

The Spad VII 150hp demonstrates extremely exaggerated shaking when at flutter speeds. Instead of only surfaces fluttering, the entire aeroplane violently rocks. It appears that with higher throttle input this problem worsens, to the point where the aircraft will rip its own wings off. This does not occur with any other Flying Circus aircraft.  

I tried it, the plane immediately loses its wings. Please record the track with the settings of the "Normal" difficulty mode.

[Noisemaker]

Brief description:  Unusually large bounce on landing

 

Detailed description:  After finishing a mission in Kuban with a Spit Vb, I lined up for a normal final approach on home base.  Inbound speed was a bit high, which I addressed with a slip until I could get a nose level glide path with a decent rate of descent  Brought the plane down a bit past the beginning of the runway, but had plenty to spare.  At about 6 feet and 80MPH, I flaired the aircraft for a 3 point landing.  Ground effect kept the plane aloft until the speed dropped to 78MPH at which point it suddenly dropped (No wing drop, a full drop) the last foot (The Spit Vb airbase typically shows ground level in the HUD at 5 feet), at which contact was made and the plane leapt back up into the air to 39 feet, after which it (despite my desperate full throttle to keep her airborne for a second pass), rapidly plummeted to a perfect, but hard 3 point landing (Injuring my pilot, but not damaging the plane).  Unfortunately, I don't have a track of this (As it was unexpected!), but I've never experienced this behaviour before, and as it was as otherwise a textbook landing, I felt the need to submit it as a bug report.

PS, the previous 2 flights had almost the exact same landing configuration without issues.

System details:  As usual, irrelevant. 

[US103_Baer]

On 8/30/2021 at 9:21 PM, -DED-Rapidus said:

I tried it, the plane immediately loses its wings. Please record the track with the settings of the "Normal" difficulty mode.

 

@-DED-Rapidus

 

I replicated the problem and found a correlation between Joystick position and onset of buffeting

 

Brief description:

 

Spad VII (150hp and 180hp) incorrect behaviour when pulling out of dives at medium - high speeds

Detailed description, conditions:

Both Spad VIIs demonstrate extremely exaggerated shaking when at flutter speeds. Instead of only surfaces fluttering, the entire aeroplane violently rocks. It appears that with higher speeds this problem worsens, to the point where the aircraft will rip its own wings off. This does not occur with any other Flying Circus aircraft.  

 

The shaking occurs when joystick is brought back to the neutral (or centre) point. Any movement AWAY from neutral will cause the shake to stop. Those stick movements can be forward or backward, though in practice only forward movements are practical owing to risk of wing loss if pulling stick back at speed.

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

Video and Track file of video'd flight in 'Normal' difficulty mode

 

 

Track file - SPAD 7 Shake V2.zip

Edited September 28, 2021 by US28_Baer

[=SqSq=SignorMagnifico]

15 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

 

@-DED-Rapidus

 

I replicated the problem and found a correlation between Joystick position and onset of buffeting

 

Brief description:

 

Spad VII (150hp and 180hp) incorrect behaviour when pulling out of dives at medium - high speeds

Detailed description, conditions:

Both Spad VIIs demonstrate extremely exaggerated shaking when at flutter speeds. Instead of only surfaces fluttering, the entire aeroplane violently rocks. It appears that with higher speeds this problem worsens, to the point where the aircraft will rip its own wings off. This does not occur with any other Flying Circus aircraft.  

 

The shaking occurs when joystick is brought back to the neutral (or centre) point. Any movement AWAY from neutral will cause the shake to stop. Those stick movements can be forward or backward, though in practice only forward movements are practical owing to risk of wing loss if pulling stick back at speed.

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

Video and Track file of video'd flight in 'Normal' difficulty mode

 

 

Track file - SPAD 7 Shake V2.zip 794.72 kB · 1 download

I can also confirm the issue. The Spad will shake so violently that it rips itself apart and kills the pilot before the plane hits the ground.

[the_emperor]

Brief description: ASh-82FN (M-82FN) engine WEP Timer too long (10min)
Detailed description, conditions: currently the WEP (1200mm/2500rpm) is implemented with with 10min in the La-5fn flight model.

Following manuals state only 5 minutes for that engine setting: 1943 La-5fn; 1944 La-5fn; 1945 Tu-2 M-82fn; 1947 Ash-82fn; 1950 La-11 Ash-82fn; 1954 Ash-82fn
Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

those manuals can be found in my post here:

Your PC config data (OS, drivers, specific software):

[No.23_Triggers]

On 9/28/2021 at 1:42 PM, US28_Baer said:

 

@-DED-Rapidus

 

I replicated the problem and found a correlation between Joystick position and onset of buffeting

 

Brief description:

 

Spad VII (150hp and 180hp) incorrect behaviour when pulling out of dives at medium - high speeds

Detailed description, conditions:

Both Spad VIIs demonstrate extremely exaggerated shaking when at flutter speeds. Instead of only surfaces fluttering, the entire aeroplane violently rocks. It appears that with higher speeds this problem worsens, to the point where the aircraft will rip its own wings off. This does not occur with any other Flying Circus aircraft.  

 

The shaking occurs when joystick is brought back to the neutral (or centre) point. Any movement AWAY from neutral will cause the shake to stop. Those stick movements can be forward or backward, though in practice only forward movements are practical owing to risk of wing loss if pulling stick back at speed.

Additional assets (videos, screenshots, logs):

Video and Track file of video'd flight in 'Normal' difficulty mode

 

 

Track file - SPAD 7 Shake V2.zip 794.72 kB · 1 download

y'all forget about this or something?