Jump to content
A_S

JOYSTICK CURVES ?!?

Recommended Posts

This topic will probably have controversal replies, but it is still worth being discussed.

 

 

Joystick Curves?:

 

Will it be like FC3, IL-2 or RoF, where the Flight-Model - or for the better expression - the controller-input responses and therefore the flight characteristics can be manipulative "changed", "constructed" or "compensated" with individual user joystick curves settings?

Shouldn´t controller inputs be always naturally linear (1 - 100% linear bandwith - no curves possible) in the first place, as the rest is either up to the FLCS (computer in modern jets) or dependent on the wiring or hydraulics (transition mechanics and type) in older planes - such as in WW2 fighters - determining the true handling qualities?

Thus, shouldn´t be the handling of the plane, meaning its own natural flight behaviour and handling characteristics be represented by its OWN physical and mechanical nature?

 

Lets remember couple things:

 

First of all, how do the control mechanics really work in WW2 fighters? To my knowledge (correct me if i am wrong) the control-sticks were mostly connected to the control surfaces by wires or pushords and rollers. Depending on the rollers (round or shaped) the relative deflection per joystick movement was determined, meaning there was a natural mechanical definition of how much surface deflection was achieveable with a specific amount of controller input in the cockpit. This will be different of course for different plane-types of that generation, but it could not be changed to the extend joystick-curves in a "game" allow. Later generations had electrical or hydrolic additions, but the concept of fixed amount of deflection per input remained the same. It was mechanically pre-determined!

Second, joystick curves have been invented in the past in the simulation world to counter old dirty potis and poti-spikings, and this feature is STILL inherited and misused with wrong purposes till today. Many virtual pilots have tried to change their curves to get a better "feel" or because with linear response some sims are just way too off in the handling of the craft, thus people were "forced" to compensate, but joystick-curves have infact NOTHING to do with the actuall physcial flight characteristic or modelling. NO relation AT ALL - even if perceived often otherwise. Curves are an "excuse" for failing FM or as buffer for failing hardware (sensors), that´s it.

 

In my personal opinion the use of joystick curves is and was inspired in many sims due to the failing modelling of the actual "cause" of forces on the frame and thus, the resulting performance results.

Most sims simulated the "effect" or "result" if you will (if this and that happens, calculate this and that as result), but not the actual "cause" of forces.

One does not need supercomputers to simulate dynamic fluid calculations as this can be (and has been) done or solved in compromising fashion before on personal home PC levels (see BMS FM).

As example, it will be easy to move your surfaces to full deflection on taxi, but it will require alot of "arm-force" once in the higher speed regimes. I know, that this can not

be simulated though, because even force-feedback joysticks nowadays can not simulate such forces anyways and it might be also difficult to simulate such counter-force deflection-properties and -limitations within the FM code, at least for WW2 fighters as they don´t posses surface managing flight-computers.

In a proper made sim one does not have to compensate flight-feelings or -habbits with "curves" - one has to feel and learn the given FM or the nature of the plane ITSELF instead.

Regardless what joystick is used, the inputs are always linear from 0-100 and the REST is truly and only modeled and "shown" by the true physics and mechanics of the plane ITSELF.

Imagine yourself sitting in ANY real WW2 combat aircraft ..and saying: " i dont like how it feels, where can i "alt-tab" and change the curves? " Really?

A plane is not a ego-shooter gun or a photoshop pencil which points or draws better with less sensitivtiy values, but a physical solid object which behaviour is commanded by the environmental physical forces and the mechanical properties only - and if excisting - by the flight computer in modern jets.

 

 

This post is not a "wish" to remove joystick curves (as they are probably already implemented with the habbits of tradition), but a post for inspiring thoughts.

 

Open for discussion and feedbacks welcome.

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

Edited by A-S
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You may have a point when using an exact copy of the plane's control column, however I'd wager that most flight-simmers use joysticks that are much shorter. For stable flying with a (short) joystick, linear is not the way to go. For longer control columns, yes.

Edited by Jochen
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am clearly a complete gaming naif. I had never thought about setting my curves to get an advantage. In fact I usually devote a full two or three minutes to setting that stuff up, before getting to work on mapping views to my trusty hatswitch.

 

Speaking of curves, I just watched a movie with Scarlett Johansson in it, and I can declare that she definitely has some.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of curves, I just watched a movie with Scarlett Johansson in it, and I can declare that she definitely has some.

 

One of the less developed things in Japan I can say from experience, despite the invention of shaping underwear and jeans.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Jochen:

 

Legit point aswell, makes sense.

 

Regardless, i am refering principally to the ability of a simulation to take linear device inputs (long or short) and translate that to proper mechanical and pyhsical fight-regime results and limitations within the simulation itself. Most joysticks have a common "length" or precission anyways and the rest is just "stick-discipline" on the hand.

 

Furthermore: We all know the implications of such "game-features". Those wil be experimented to death again in order to find and "exploit" flaws in the flight-modelling and to gain advantages.

The classic "turn with trim" instead of "with joystick" case in IL-2 (mishap in calculation of drag) is just one example of many. Since i can remember the days of virtual

flying (eta 10 years now) people always have tried to "exploit" the sh++ out of sims... in all sims, at least those with competitive nature.

 

But a good simulation should RECOGNIZE and not allow those abuses - generally speaking.

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed that you want to simulate with accuracy, and that trim-only turn you mention is new to me and sounds strange.

Remember that some aces used real-life exploits to their advantage (like reducing turn radius with landing gear doors open), so I can live with a little inaccuracy exploit as long as it requires skill to use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we really need to agree on some boundaries on realism here, if anything because finding a solution that makes everybody happy is virtually impossible.

 

The interaction man-simulator happens by means of your peripherals and the software you're playing with, and it has a fundamental bias which can't be simulated: the physics of control surfaces. 

 

Our joysticks are operated on a fly-by-wire principle, and there's no way for them to reproduce the stiffness of the original mechanical controls (I'm not even sure that force feedback technology is good enough for that at the moment). 

 

The Bf109 notoriously had its controls increasingly stiffening as speed increased, so the manoeuvrability was decided by the actual strength of the pilot, how are we gonna simulate that? 

 

My suggestion is to concentrate on other aspects, and avoid fiddling with controls to improve performance. You won't win a dogfight based exclusively on how tight you can turn and how fast your roll rate is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The interaction man-simulator happens by means of your peripherals and the software you're playing with, and it has a fundamental bias which can't be simulated: the physics of control surfaces. 

 

 

You won't win a dogfight based exclusively on how tight you can turn and how fast your roll rate is

 

1) Not true. It can be and has been. If you are more interested in different methods and how flight as such can be simulated on a computer, i can give you examples. I pointed to it previously with a "simulating the cause instead of the effect".

 

2) True, but that´s a totally different topic with it´s on depth and beauty.

 

 

It isnt about making "everyone happy". This "flaw" has been modelled and this "tradition" has been inherited over generations in many sims with very few exceptions.

 

Let us consider the implications if no curves are available and the modelling is properly made (not talking about the forces on the stick here):

 

- Everyone, regardless his joystick type and built can only move his stick from 0 to full - LINEAR, period.

Some joysticks might perform better in quality or less, but the player (pilots) input is for everyone the same, meaning all require the same "stick discipline".

The rest or the actual represtation of the physics in flight (results) are commanded by the code and the plane, NOT manipulated by the USER.

 

- "Curves" can NOT be exploited in order to change the response characteristics of airframes as the same (if done right) is represented by its OWN true mechanical and physical nature (the plane flies and behaves how it is supposed to by it´s own nature).

The user can only decide to input between 0 or 100 % for each axis and the rest is computed (TRANSLATED) by the flight-model code.

Angular surface deflections, limitations and forces (due to speed ie) can be calculated as everything else.

 

- It does not encourage pilots to approach "flying" with an "arcadian" mindset anymore as the true physical results are taken care of by the code. More appreciation and respect

towards "flying".

 

- The "plane" can not learn or adapt to YOUR habbits or immersion opinions by manipulated setting, YOU have to learn the planes character instead! At the beginning this might sound "scary", like loosing a previously given comfort zone, but you will appreciate it afterwards.

 

 

I knew this topic will provoke controversial replies, but we have to drop the "believe" and "cant imagine different" mindset and focus more on the real

sophisticated solutions and my hope is, that maybe a Developer might stumble upon this thread :) , thus the energy in posting.

 

I am very very curious how and it what fashion they developed the flight physcis in BoS. Looking forward to be positively suprised.

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
- Everyone, regardless his joystick type and built can only move his stick from 0 to full - LINEAR, period.

Some joysticks might perform better in quality or less, but the player (pilots) input is for everyone the same, meaning all require the same "stick discipline".

 

That is a bold statement. You're by-passing hysteresis, dead zone and centring force, which differ per joystick.

You will have to match the joystick characteristics to the flight model, which is why the tuning capability is there.

Edited by Jochen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, the tuning ability was introduced because of lack in precision in hardware (joysticks with potis). But meanwhile most joysticks are much better in quality and sensoric (hall-sonsors, accurate dead-zone) - at least in the price midrange area. I mean, c´mon .. if you fly BoS with a crappy 20 bucks poti stick.. dont expect wonders right?

 

Btw, Falcon BMS, which i personally consider the most sophisticated FM on the market, has NO CURVES at all and it is exellent flyable

with all kind of joysticks. But lets not compare too much, because the F16 is flight computer controlled - just as example.

Flight Model documentation: http://www.benchmarksims.org/forum/content.php?45-documentation

(you need to be logged-in).

 

 

Additional:

 

Just to prevent misunderstandings in previous posts and to be more clear. Having linear settings (no curves) on the stick doesn´t mean, that the surfaces in the sim will move linear at all times aswell, NO!, not at all.

The deflection-degree and -speed ingame should be controlled by the code translating it - "built-in curve physics" if you will, or if that makes sense.

The code itself should decide how much and what KIND OF deflection you get depending on your flight regime. Lets say at taxi you move your stick 70% and the elevator goes 70% aswell (linear), but at high speeds the elevator doesn´t go 70% and slower as on taxi (not linear) - simply put. Of course this requires better and more in depth analytics, but the analogy should help.

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

joystick curves have been invented in the past in the simulation world to counter old dirty potis and poti-spikings, and this feature is STILL inherited and misused with wrong purposes till today.

 

But in XXI century the major of joysticks (entry level) and gamepad still using potentiometers - and the actually pot' are worst (cheap) than ones used in past.

G940 drivers have a feature know as "reverse bug" to compensate variations in pot' response, to allow using cheap pot's.

 

In the past what are worst are not the pot's per si, are the gameport circuit.

 

In RoF forum a guy defends the thesis that in past controls response curves in "sim" are "dumbing down" to adjust to gameport limitations.

And that RoF dont have this, for example control a rudder with a 10 bits USB controller+magnetic sensor equipped pedal show differences

over a 8 bits equipped one (...this "one" still using pot's). ;)

 

Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two points.

 

Firstly, response curves aren't some sort of magic fix for poor piloting ability. All they can do is reduce sensitivity in part of the range, at the expense of increasing it elsewhere.

 

Secondly, even if you remove response curves in-game, it is possible to add them externally via software. Or come to that, it would be entirely possible to construct hardware with a non-linear response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sokol1:

 

Hmm. I do understand the niche and the "gamepad" market from economical perspective ($$$).

But if BoS is a "gamepad" (or at least a gamepad "friendly") simulation, then i will not conider is as simulation but as arcade game (like Warthunder), despite the "selling" graphics.

 

@AndyJWest:

 

You are absolutly right, but that doesn´t change the fact, IF the simulation is or is not able to calculate and model the INPUTS to FM relations properly ;)

The "plane" can not learn or adapt to YOUR habbits or immersion opinions by manipulated setting, YOU have to learn the planes character instead!

 

cheers

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, considering the war effort, how repetitive the plane controls themselves were. It wouldn't surprise me if they weren't, given the wear and abuse and poor front-line maintenance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-S, I am afraid there is some confusion here, let me see if I got it right: 

 

When I sit on an a plane and move the controls, the surfaces respond accordingly, in a linear way. As airspeed increases two things change: the strength to apply and the response, do we agree on this? :)

 

Now having a fly-by-wire as we do, it means that the element of feedback from the surfaces can't be replicated unless we have force feedback, and even then it's hard to reproduce or calculate the exact feedback expected from the specific machine.

 

How do you suggest to overcome this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sokol1:

 

Hmm. I do understand the niche and the "gamepad" market from economical perspective ($$$).

But if BoS is a "gamepad" (or at least a gamepad "friendly") simulation, then i will not conider is as simulation but as arcade game (like Warthunder), despite the "selling" graphics.

 

I only include gamepad as device that use pot's because of "Gamepad Lobby" existing here. :biggrin:

 

Sokol1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

How do you suggest to overcome this?

 

@Sternjäger:

 

I posted how. You just have to scroll back up and dig throgh my posts. Dont focus too much on the bodily forces on a real stick. Try to understand it as;

there are already natural "curves" in the properties of the plane itself (mechanically and physically). We just input (move stick) from 0-100 linear :) . How the planes finally performs is not depending on our joystick settings, but just the PHYSCIS of flight.

WW2 planes have already a "curve" like response mechanically built in. That has never been simulated in IL-2 ie. All they did was slowing down the deflection speed on some surfaces to "bypass" (workaround) this problem.

So, no need for extra individual curves in the joystick settings.

 

But let us first see how they did it in BoS. Right now everything is just chit-chat, which is cool.

 

Btw:

We do NOT have Fly-By-Wire, we have manual flight controls in WW2 planes. Just because our joysticks are pluged into the computers by wires (electric), doesn´t mean we have a true FBW (pilot inputs directives via joystick and the computer decides how to convert those in desired flight commands) in WW2 planes. That was developed much much later. The F-16 was the first true FBW jet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Sternjäger:

 

I posted how. You just have to scroll back up and dig throgh my posts. Dont focus too much on the bodily forces on a real stick. Try to understand it as;

there are already natural "curves" in the properties of the plane itself (mechanically and physically). We just input (move stick) from 0-100 linear :) . How the planes finally performs is not depending on our joystick settings, but just the PHYSCIS of flight.

WW2 planes have already a "curve" like response mechanically built in. That has never been simulated in IL-2 ie. All they did was slowing down the deflection speed on some surfaces to "bypass" (workaround) this problem.

So, no need for extra individual curves in the joystick settings.

 

But let us first see how they did it in BoS. Right now everything is just chit-chat, which is cool.

 

Btw:

We do NOT have Fly-By-Wire, we have manual flight controls in WW2 planes. Just because our joysticks are pluged into the computers by wires (electric), doesn´t mean we have a true FBW (pilot inputs directives via joystick and the computer decides how to convert those in desired flight commands) in WW2 planes. That was developed much much later. The F-16 was the first true FBW jet.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly-by-wire

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

 

I'm not sure I understand this concept of "curves", but as you said let's wait and see! :)

 

As per the FBW, we do indeed. We're using a joystick to "tell" the game where we want the surfaces to be, we do not have direct control of the surfaces. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-S, I am afraid there is some confusion here, let me see if I got it right: 

 

When I sit on an a plane and move the controls, the surfaces respond accordingly, in a linear way. As airspeed increases two things change: the strength to apply and the response, do we agree on this? :)

An average pilot strength model could be used to determine the "stick curve" limits on the axis. That data is contained in an NACA report on that very subject that was used as part of the United States stability and control standards adopted in 1942.

 

 

The FM seems to be very capable of simulating a stability margin that changes with condition of flight and could be used to determine the other end of the stick curve.

 

Stability margin is the arm between the center of gravity and the aerodynamic center.

 

Stability margin is small, stick becomes sensitive and the forces are light. Stick curve is highly sloped.

 

Stability margin is large, stick becomes less sensitive and the forces increase. Stick curve has a smaller slope.

 

Stability margin is large enough and the forces over come the average pilot's strength such that the limit is reached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess so, but again an average pilot strength is like saying an average pilot eyesight.. do you see what I mean? How do we draw a line between simulation and reality? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

As per the FBW, we do indeed. We're using a joystick to "tell" the game where we want the surfaces to be, we do not have direct control of the surfaces. 

 

LOL, if you see it that way we could say so, but again...it´s not really a FBW as WW2 didnt´t have that and therefore we have to respect how we simulate it, meaning no "fictional FBW" aka "joystick curves" ;)

 

Get my point now ?

 

@Crump

 

Nice post.

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joystick curves have nothing whatsoever to do with FBW. 

 

Correct, it was just an anology ;)

 

Let´s be honest; the reasoning joystick curves are "there" to compensate hardware flaws is a "phallacy"  :ph34r: , because everyone knows

that those features are mostly used and have been used to conserve more energy or for more steady aiming ..etc etc aka to MANIPULATE the flight characteristics. I call a 50% BS on that.

For me (personally) joystick curves are as "arcadian" as FOV zooming. (PS: NO, you dont see in real everything.. its sometimes even harder to see anything)

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joystick curves cannot 'manipulate flight characteristics'. All they can do is vary the sensitivity of the joystick across its range. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Joystick curves cannot 'manipulate flight characteristics'. All they can do is vary the sensitivity of the joystick across its range. 

 

One would thinks so, yea, but it depends on the accuracy and quality of the flight-model, therefore i agree to disagree ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree all you like. You can't alter a flight model by adjusting the linearity of joystick response. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree all you like. You can't alter a flight model by adjusting the linearity of joystick response. 

 

Andy, i haven´t made that post in order to argue with you (or anyone). I dont know your background, nor your understanding in modelling of flight physics on a computer. You are partially right and wrong and i give you the benefit of misunderstandng eachother.

 

I could go in deeper into that matter, but let me make it very simple for you:

 

Lets say we try fly the SAME loop with the same starting altitude and speed in a Bf109 F4 in REAL and in the sim having the same gross weight.

We enter the loop the with 50% of stick reflection (not elevators) pulled from center to 50% smoothly in 3 seconds in the real plane and in the sim plane.

 

What do you think how the real plane will perform! (performance wise..Gs..speed at top etc) in comparision to your sim plane with your A, B or C curve settings ? :)

 

What you expirience as "curves will not change the FM as such" is actually the representation of the LACK of proper FM in many older sims like IL-2.

We can argue about who is right or not, that is why i said before; it depdends on the accuracy and quality of the FM provided.

 

And yes, that DOES change the FM as REAL flight expirience is inextricably and unsophisticated connected with the DIRECT inputs (resulting in the performing of the aircraft) one has to give in a real cockpit. It can not be altered with in real (well unless the mech-guy takes the screwdriver lol).

The plane has (should have) its own mechanical curve-like response in ITSELF so you dont need to "compensate" a joystick device in

order to make it "FEEL" smoother.

Your inputs are linear on the stick (for all joystick brands)...the rest is done in the plane and within the environmental physics.

 

Crump made a nice post pointing into the precisely right direction !

 

 

Anyways..enough posting of mine..  Time to wait and see how it is actually done in BoS.

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look at this video and watch how "fast" the flight surfaces move at 0 speed: 

 

and compare that with IL-2 :)

 

I bet, once fast the surfaces dont move that easy and fast anymore ..and that is exactly what i was posting about partially.

I am glad to see it that good in BOS actually :salute:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the surfaces will move as fast as you move the controls mate, they're connected by rigid linkages in most cases, and even the cable ones still have quite an immediate response. You will find that the true secret to control response is given by the control balance weights, which were supposed to keep the controls responsive at high speeds and reduce flutter. 

Edited by Sternjaeger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ A-S.

 

Yes, if you make the response of the stick non-linear, the output isn't directly proportional to the input. What a brilliant deduction...  :rolleyes:

Edited by AndyJWest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It appears, that You haven´t  expirienced anything else from what you are used to (bias understanding) regards Andy. No point in turning in circles and turning this into a forum "piss-contest". I opened this topic publically to hear solutions not dogmas, but there are more efficient channels as well and luckily this forum is feedback friendly and pm-ing Devs is possible.

 

That being said... over and out for me on this one.

 

Respectfully

 

A.S

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How the heck do you know what I have or haven't experienced, A-S? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the high probability that you haven´t flown any other simulations than those, which are commonly available on the market and from the way how you reply.

Crump "got it" (his post), BoS understood it (video).. you didn´t .. or maybe i haven´t expressed myself accurate enough, who knows.

 

Doesn´t matter Andy..this is not personal.

Edited by A-S

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i suppose in real life pilots could set sensitivity at will being a cable lever systen its pretty easy, i did all the time with my bike clutch, at least top pilots

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess so, but again an average pilot strength is like saying an average pilot eyesight.. do you see what I mean? How do we draw a line between simulation and reality?

 

No I don't see what you mean. You do know that this has been the subject of numerous studies and is an integral part of modern stability and control standards.

 

It is not something the community would have to guess or speculate on.

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A-S,

 

I understand what you are saying. Unfortunately stability and control is a very complicated subject. I raised this issue in CloD and it was a disaster.

 

Even engineers have trouble with it and a gaming community discussion is just not productive.

 

Unfortunately, it was the one area that makes the most performance and handling difference in World War II era aircraft. Aircraft weight and speeds had outstripped our understanding of stability and control. They struggled to quantify certain behaviors but thanks to the efforts of some brilliant engineers and even more importantly, farsighted test pilots, standards were developed that post war became convention.

Edited by Crump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have flown aircraft with more of a 'deadzone' in aileron control than the entire throw of my joystick.  Even something like a Cirrus allows ~90 degrees of rotation or so on the side stick - way more than my joystick can duplicate.

 

I can't hope to duplicate the precision of a floor mounted stick or a panel mounted yoke simply because "a little bit more pitch angle" in a real plane might mean a change in pressure on the controls - not much discernible movement at all - which would require perhaps 1/5th of that motion on a joystick.  If we start spending ~50k for nice full motion redbirds, we can fix that.  We can also fix a virtual pilot's ability to change flap settings, power settings, prop settings, mixture, supercharger speeds, gear positions and manipulate the primary flight controls in an unreasonably short period of time.

 

As it is, PC controls just aren't the same as aircraft controls.  I don't tend to change curves, except perhaps to increase the deadzone but I see it as a matter of preference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you find the Cirrus sidestick, HeavyCavalrySgt? It seems to have attracted some criticism:

 

The Cirrus control system offers no “feel”, very little aerodynamic resistance because its control mechanism is centered by springs, not by aerodynamic pressure. A Cirrus control in flight feels the same to a pilot at any airspeed. Furthermore, small hand movements command full flight control deflection. The Cirrus joystick is so touchy that Cirrus instructors teach pilots to squeeze the control handle instead of pull back to rotate at takeoff.

From here: http://www.aviationlawmonitor.com/2010/12/articles/cirrus-aircraft/steve-wilson-the-cirrus-airplane-has-serious-problems/

 

If that is anything like correct, maybe we need a few more of Crump's WW2 test pilots and engineers...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Imagine yourself sitting in ANY real WW2 combat aircraft ..and saying: " i dont like how it feels, where can i "alt-tab" and change the curves? " Really?"

 

This

 

While I am no expert on joystick curves, this issue has always bothered me in flight sims, I have not flown much in online battles but that section of the community are usually the most vocal in complaining about historical FM issues and can go on for pages debating tiny differences in speeds, g limits turn performance ad infinitum. However onerous some of these debates can be they have a value, we all want accurate and historical FM's or we would be happy with fantasy stuff like WT. But you are then able to jump into your favorite ride and tailor the flight characteristics to how you prefer them making rather a mockery of "sim flying" a particular A/C in a historical way.

​In another thread I mentioned a very experienced real DC-3 pilot who spent a lot of time setting up curves dead zones and sensitivities to replicate his real life experiences in a study flight sim, he was able to get a setup that he was happy with (obviously subjective)and felt the sim DC-3 very convincing to his real one. This was not in a combat sim but if these type of settings of historical accuracy were default in a popular fighter A/C it would be quickly modified to give quicker responses and be a "sweeter" ride, gaming the game perhaps but common place and not frowned upon.

 

Curves cannot and do not change FM but they sure can modify flight characteristics to totally unrepresentative results.

 

I have no answers for this, but it does seem a huge loophole to be able to turn a sluggish slow responding A/C into a demon dogfighter, or "engineer" out some flaw in the original aircraft handling.

All aircraft, even of the same production run will have widely  differing handling to an extent due to production tolerances and simple setup in rigging, especially in wartime, but pilots were NOT able to tailor there aircraft to perform to their desired handling traits, they learned and trained how to work around any flaws and get the best out of the performance of the aircraft how it was given to them.

 

So if you want historical accuracy fly it how it is and not how you want it to be  :) and therin lies the problem, a million unprovable debates on how an aircraft should "feel"

and that is the challenge of the developers to get that right and as historically convincing as possible "straight out of the box" with adjustments available to make up for joystick inaccuracies but not the possibility to change fundamentally  how an aircraft handles (if this is in fact correct  ;) )

 

Cheers Dakpilot

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...