What's the wobbling thing ?

[Guest deleted@50488]

Dakpilot, Prefontaine, and others in  this thread, have real world flight experience.

 

Mine is limited to gliders, although extensive in that area, and a lot of dedicated time of my life to flight simulation.

 

I believe that specially the comments from RW pilots of powered aircraft are worth taking into consideration, even if their experience does not come from powerful prop aircraft, or even less ww2 aircraft... but still, it's a more than worth experience to read and think about...  How can a simmer only comment on the RL flight characteristics of an aircraft and discard the observations made by RW pilots ?  c'mon.... be realistic....

 

Then there are the Developers - they're certainly dedicated to the Cause of IL-2, and have, several times, I'd say at least once a week, proved that with the news they give us on the EXCELLENT progress of their Work, and almost every 2 months since IL-2 was released by releasing news modules or updating the game by tuning or correction of features / bugs.

 

I'd say we all are here because of the success that, all being said and thought, IL-2 BoS / BoM actually IS.

 

I myself tend to throw away sims... tend to try to find in them some good reason to give up - strange way of dealing with a passion, I know, but heck - that's me... and with IL-2 BoS the very same has happened, even more since I also play DCS World and have WW2 fighters there too, but, I believe there is really no reason for me to give up on BoS or decide it is not worth the investment - quite on the contrary!

 

What does this have to do with the wobbling ?  Simple !  It has almost as much as being offered a Track IR a couple of years ago by a great friend who was not using it changed my simmer life - I wouldn't know how to combat sim without it. I also wouldn't be able to spend a week without playing IL-2 BoS, and actually 90% of the time, all 4 sims I use being considered, and although I still find DCS the most advanced flight simulation platform in as far as for instance rotary wing ar concerned, truth is it is IL-2 BoS that I start and play.

 

Why ? Why specially given that I hgave been expressing in this thread how much I dislike the wobbling ( mostly in pitch ) ?

 

Because in it's many positive features it simply compensates for this or that limitation, and just as there have been features that were tuned for better performance along the development cycle of this excellent game, maybe one day the Devs can find some way to overcome that wobbling effect.

 

What changed was my perception of the reasons that may be in it's origin - probably not that much a flight dynamics modeling problem but more the  way the interaction with external controllers is coded ? 

 

I've been learning how to deal with it, and even in the most problematic aircraft ( because ALL of them, not only the Axis ) suffer from wobbling, the G2, I can, just as Prefontaine and others have shown, fly it without wobbling or much wobbling, and feel fine with the overall handling of the aircraft in this simulator.

Edited December 22, 2015 by JCOMM

[PeterZvan]

One thing that is also playing a part in this is the ammount of possible deflection on the elevator / airlons / rudder.

On our controlers the throw is always the same, on the simulated planes the maximum deflections are differing.

If I look at it visually the Yak has much less maximum deflection possible on the elevator compared to the 109.

This translates into much more sensitive pitch for the 109.

It has nothing to do with the FM itself - it is only the translation of our joystick input.

If I oversimplify - for instance one plane has a max deflection of 10 degrees and second has a max defleciton of 20 degrees.

For the fist plane the controling is much less sensitive - much easier to control and much less woble inducing.

For the second plane the control is twice as sensitive and you have to move the controler half of the distance for the same result.

Therefore much more precise control is needed and it is much easier to overcontrol / induce wobble.

 

Here is where curves are necesary to get the same sensitivity on the controler.

Acctually to get to the less sensitive solution the best way would be to simply use only half of the possible deflection range -> modify the joystick output in such a way that one gets only 50% deflection as maximum.

This is of course possible and acctually easy to do.

 

The worst thing to do however is to introduce center deadzones. This automaticly creates a controling problem.

Even curves if too drastic create the same effect.

I personally avoid curves as much as possible - and I really miss RoFs way of handling controlers - there it was easy to correct this sort of behaviour and having a very linear curve at the same time. I cannot understand why this wasnt used in BoS. It would be really usable for the 109 - at 0 deflection on the spring joystick the elevators on the plane acctually deflected down some degrees (I suspect here the max possible defleciton on the 109s was not symetric for up and down - therefore center is not where our joystick center is - this is exactly the same as the Se5 in RoF). Trim dosent fix this issue -> if you trim the 109 to fly straight you acctually position the stabilizer a bit too much upwards to compensate form the downwards input of the elevator.

 

RoF really had it done superbly as we could make responces for each plane seperatly and it was loaded when you used it.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Peter, with all due respect, what you wrote about responses is not only oversimplified but also wrong.

[Sparviero_ITA]

One thing that is also playing a part in this is the ammount of possible deflection on the elevator / airlons / rudder.

On our controlers the throw is always the same, on the simulated planes the maximum deflections are differing.

If I look at it visually the Yak has much less maximum deflection possible on the elevator compared to the 109.

This translates into much more sensitive pitch for the 109.

It has nothing to do with the FM itself - it is only the translation of our joystick input.

If I oversimplify - for instance one plane has a max deflection of 10 degrees and second has a max defleciton of 20 degrees.

For the fist plane the controling is much less sensitive - much easier to control and much less woble inducing.

For the second plane the control is twice as sensitive and you have to move the controler half of the distance for the same result.

Therefore much more precise control is needed and it is much easier to overcontrol / induce wobble.

 

Here is where curves are necesary to get the same sensitivity on the controler.

Acctually to get to the less sensitive solution the best way would be to simply use only half of the possible deflection range -> modify the joystick output in such a way that one gets only 50% deflection as maximum.

This is of course possible and acctually easy to do.

 

The worst thing to do however is to introduce center deadzones. This automaticly creates a controling problem.

Even curves if too drastic create the same effect.

I personally avoid curves as much as possible - and I really miss RoFs way of handling controlers - there it was easy to correct this sort of behaviour and having a very linear curve at the same time. I cannot understand why this wasnt used in BoS. It would be really usable for the 109 - at 0 deflection on the spring joystick the elevators on the plane acctually deflected down some degrees (I suspect here the max possible defleciton on the 109s was not symetric for up and down - therefore center is not where our joystick center is - this is exactly the same as the Se5 in RoF). Trim dosent fix this issue -> if you trim the 109 to fly straight you acctually position the stabilizer a bit too much upwards to compensate form the downwards input of the elevator.

 

RoF really had it done superbly as we could make responces for each plane seperatly and it was loaded when you used it.

 

Hi.

 

If i have understand,if i adopt a setting with curves, and dead zones well balanced, that problem about the instability on the pitch to BF 109...it's not longer appears!....right?

 

Strange, because i use a stick about 12 cm extension on my Warthog, and for how many settings i can test, that effect it change minimally ,but instead,it's invalidate vastly the maneuverability.

 

There would also be another alternative.

That's just asking which periferic the Studio 777 they have tested this game, and enter the same complex settings that have them ,and later,check again what they feel about a right sampling whit that setting/periferic.

 

It's intresting to see as somebody,dont want accept a evidence,and he want trasfomare a issue, in an exclusive quality about just this..... SIM.

 

But what's wrong if you just say.... Guys! This effect it's too much pronounced.....Here we need a patch to fix it.

 

It is possible to agree on something, or we want to stay here to continue to bounce data taken at around.....only to create some distractions?

Edited December 22, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[216th_Jordan]

Peter, with all due respect, what you wrote about responses is not only oversimplified but also wrong.

 

Please explain.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Please explain.

Deflection of tail surfaces and stick sensitivity is not a simple function. It's impossible to put an equal sign between elevator deflection of two totally different AC and make conclusions like Peter did. The relation is not this easy and simplification doesn't help. On top of that deflection of elevator and directional instability is also a complex function. All planes we have in BOS/BOM have certain amount of directional stability. Each and every type has its own model and these models differ on stability. What we are seeing here is a difference in stability of respective FMs. This difference may be amplified by different sensitivity functions for respective types but there is no way stability difference is only a function of different sensitivity.

Also where did Peter pull those 10 and 20 degree numbers out from?

Today we have got Mig 3 in BOM. Give it a try to test it. You'll find very well pronounced directional instability if you threat her roughly on elevator. The same goes to P40. How does that come some planes have poor directional stability and some don't? Well, they are different. They have different FMs and stability is a part of the FMs. I guess this thread shall more focus on finding appropriate real world documents than pulling theories out of thin air.

[Bearcat]

When was the Yak-1 being over-modeled in BOS proven with solid evidence?  From what I've seen, the developers have stood by their word that if one can quantifiably prove that aircraft performance differs from what it should, they will correct the deficiency.

It hasn't been. Just a lot of conjecture and opinion.

[JG4_dingsda]

The too high performance of the Yak-1 at 4000m+ has been proven many times. I don't think it's even disputed by anyone, who has spend 5 minutes to check it himself.

 

It hasn't been. Just a lot of conjecture and opinion.

 

[...]

[PeterZvan]

You misunderstand Rumcajs.

10 and 20 degrees are just examples for easier understanding.

 

I am not saying that BoS is stable enough. I dont know that and have no way of knowing. And I am not defending its current state.

What I am saying is however conected to how we use the controlers and how the deflections happen on the planes.

 

I see instability currently from three sides:

1: FM related instability (most important one) 

2: Instability from over / undercontroling due to the controlers setup (this is what I was getting at with my post before - and in continuation below) 

3: Instability from over / under controling due to the viewing system in cockpit moving not connected with the plane (with delay - description in my post some pages back)

 

If looking only from the controler side we can get very different sensitivity if at one time our max deflection ingame is less and one time it is more.

And this is deffinitly the case between the planes. Of course the other part are the complexitys of the FM and they probably play a bigger role in it all.

And I would just like to point out that the controler part might be significant enough to make a difference.

I sadly dont know what are the max deflection of elevators for Yak 1 and 109 G2 for instance, but I would like to know that -> if there is a big difference it is than potentially part of the problem.

Visually in game for me the difference is quite large - hence why I mention it.

 

What everyone at the moment is commenting on is a combination of all three and the blame is put to the FM alone

However it would be important to know how much of the wobble effect is down to 1: FM instability, 2: Controler sensitivty and overcontroling 3: View movement and delayed over / undercontroling

Once this is understood, than the FM itself can be objectivly examined.

Currently noone touched points 2 and 3 in detail.

 

If someone has the data for max deflection of elevator for Yak1 and 109 G2 please write them -> I will than suggest how to try and equate the joystick / elevator responces to see just how much it is down to this (point 2)

It can be done with external program without curves and very simple.

Edited December 22, 2015 by PeterZvan

[SharpeXB]

One thing that is also playing a part in this is the ammount of possible deflection on the elevator / airlons / rudder.

On our controlers the throw is always the same, on the simulated planes the maximum deflections are differing.

If I look at it visually the Yak has much less maximum deflection possible on the elevator compared to the 109.

This translates into much more sensitive pitch for the 109.

It has nothing to do with the FM itself - it is only the translation of our joystick input.

 

I'm sure 1CGS got the control deflections for these planes correct. And it's not the joystick which makes the difference, 100% movement on your stick will translate to 100% on the plane regardless.

[SharpeXB]

Of course it can be flow without wobbling. Clearly you haven't read the thread -- I posted a video of me doing just that a few pages back. Just because you can fly through it doesn't mean it should be there in the first place. 

 

 

So do you think it's possible that players who can control this in the game are doing it in the same way a real pilot does, that is by not overcorrecting and not having inputs out of phase?

Also consider that it's possible to slam the stick around in these planes without any force on the controls in a way that would be impossible in reality?

Acctually to get to the less sensitive solution the best way would be to simply use only half of the possible deflection range -> modify the joystick output in such a way that one gets only 50% deflection as maximum.

This is of course possible and acctually easy to do.

 

 

This is not a good idea. You need the full control range in the game for the same reason a real pilot does, to do things like recover spins and control the plane on the ground etc.

[Matt]

 

 

If someone has the data for max deflection of elevator for Yak1 and 109 G2 please write them -> I will than suggest how to try and equate the joystick / elevator responces to see just how much it is down to this (point 2)

 

I only have the numbers for the F-4 (it would surprise me, if it would be different on the G-2) and it's 33° up and 34° down.

 

Not sure about the Yak-1, but if the external model can be trusted, it's 24° up and 19° down.

[Quax]

I've been around the sim community for a long time. No need to go back, I've been part of most of the discussions. 

 

Of course it can be flow without wobbling. Clearly you haven't read the thread -- I posted a video of me doing just that a few pages back. Just because you can fly through it doesn't mean it should be there in the first place. 

 

Thanks for the lecture on G loads in combat, btw. How many hours do you have at high G, fighting another aircraft? Go ahead, ask me the same question. 

 

 

 

 

 

He flew the 109 in combat, and he flew the BoS 109 on my simulator. And he said the opposite than you (sim is less sensitive than the real plane). Whom shall I believe, you or him ?

 

Any more questions ?

[PeterZvan]

I'm sure 1CGS got the control deflections for these planes correct. And it's not the joystick which makes the difference, 100% movement on your stick will translate to 100% on the plane regardless.

This is what I am saying - look at Matt comment above:

 

Yak 1 - max deflection 24 up and 19 down (total 43 degrees)

109 F4 - Max deflection 33 up and 34 down (total 67 degrees)

 

So for the same joystick on the 109 you need 1,55 times less deflection of the joystick than on the Yak to get the same deflection of the elevator - I would say that this is significant.

 

As for using only part of the range -> I would / will do this only to see how the wobble is with this setting on the 109 -> than its more comparable between planes. What was doable in RoF was to make a curve which was linear and less sensitive for 90% of the range and on the last 10% I gave it the full range - sure the last part was a big jump, however it was used for abrupt maneuvers and getting out of stalls, so the jump in the range was not critical and easy to manage.

 

 

How to use only part of the range - one can calibrate in such a way that you manualy manipulate the calibration so that when you move the joystick to full deflection you tell it that it is only 50% of its range - doable with DIView

[CaK_Rumcajs]

Peter and how are related elevator deflections of both types and corresponding responses? It looks like you think that equal deflections will lead to equal responses. This most likely is not true. And unless you can answer questions regarding deflection and response of mentioned types there is zero chance your 1.55 coefficient has any reasonable meaning. Believe me, it's much more complex to run some simple math in the forum post to prove anything.

[PeterZvan]

I know its much more complex -> that is why I am not stating that this is the complete difference - I am just trying to understand how much from this influances the wobble effect. Its probably a small percentage of the issue or none at all. It is however interesting to check out.

-> like I said two posts back -> I see 3 seperate issues here:

1: FM

2: Controler / deflection differences

3: Delaying moving view in cockpit

Edited December 22, 2015 by PeterZvan

[Dakpilot]

 

 

 

He flew the 109 in combat, and he flew the BoS 109 on my simulator. And he said the opposite than you (sim is less sensitive than the real plane). Whom shall I believe, you or him ?

 

Any more questions ?

 

Never ever noticed that a Revi could look like a nice cool beer   

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Sparviero_ITA]

Just in case about dude, BF 109 vs Yak 1,plz  read the interview  to the yak pilot Iván Ivánovich Kozhemyáko- Part 03_ yak1 :

 

http://www.rkka.es/Entrevistas/kozhemyako/index.htm

 

Basically he says that the differences were minimal about this two models,and neither had stability problems, but the only difference was that yak 1 could spin faster ,and the BF-109 a best rate of climb.

In dog fight Yak dont use the flaps....because they would lose too much speed.

And think about that he talking about a comparative of the BF 109 G2.....the heavier that F4,and the average engage speed for Yak 1 was from 200 Kmh to 550 KMh,over that speed.....It was outside of specification.

But of course...he is a old grandpa, and and his memory is not reliable whitout a archive historic.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[PeterZvan]

I did a test using DXtweak.

I used the 1,55 factor for my Joystick - I used 1,55 times more than the max normal calibration of my Joystick on the pitch axis -> With max joystick deflection physicly I than got 0,65 of the value on the axis.

How I did this -> my joystick has a resolution from 0 to 4095 points. 2052 is my center.

I kept the 2052 as the center, but used -1128 as the low calibraton and 5232 as max calibration. With DIView this is not possible, but with DXTweak it is doable.

I thought however that I can manipulate the axis freely, but its not doable - I saw a program that allowed this at one point, but forgot what it was.

Anyway - 109 was than very plesant to fly. Much simpler to aim, much less overcontroling.

Downside of course is the missing range.

I did try to manualy modify the curves in the text files in BoS input folder. They can be found in the current.map and default.map text files if you scroll down to the pitch section.

I did modify it so that the responce would be linear with 1,55 less koefficient than normaly until 0,7 of the range and than for the remaining range the koefficient is much higher. This would make it all as two linear lines over the range - in the normal flying range less sensitivity and in the last part of the range very fast -> for stall saving where exact control is not needed.

Sadly the curves got automaticly overwriten to the normal linear curve.

That was dissapointing as I was hopefull that we could at least be able to do it via text editing (I would have shared the example of course if succesfull).

 

Anyway - I am now very interested and will look for programs which alter the axis of the joystick. I thin that Target software had this. Or the saitek software.... I hope they work with other controlers as well.

Edited December 22, 2015 by PeterZvan

[SharpeXB]

I'm not sure what the benefit of doing the above is since you can just control responses in the game menu itself.

[PeterZvan]

You cant in such way.

The curve cannot be linear and the end deadzones make it more sensitive and not less sensitive.

The idea is to have it linear with a less steep angle for most of the range (lets say about 85% of the joystick range) and the last 15% of the joystick range make it either linear with a steep angle or exponential -> its acctually irrelevant as the last 15% are than used only for abrupt / stall saving maneuvers. This would work for 109 / 190 - very sensitive planes. But would make the planes like the Yak or Lagg very unresponcive.

 

In any case - I personaly dont have the problem - I am using fully linear and no filtering to get the most clear and undisturbed responce. I would be tempted to use the axis setting described above as it would make it easier on the controls in tight situations though.

So if someone knows of a generic axis adjustement software please let me know - Sokol perhaps?

[SharpeXB]

Why would you want the transition sharp instead of smooth? It seems like having an abrupt change in the response isn't a good idea. Otherwise this above is just a segmented S-curve.

On takeoff you normally have the stick full back and then center it. Segmenting the response might be trouble there.

[GP*]

Why get so uppity about a simple comment saying that one does not have the same feedback in a sim as in a real aircraft, which is one of the main contributing factors in a 'sim' being harder to fly

 

SOME people who are not experienced pilots in RL will suffer from overcontrolling

 

sheesh!

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

I re-read my post, and you're right, it comes off as hostile. That was not my intent, and I apologize. It does get frustrating, however, when on page 12 of a discussion, points that were already discussed a few pages back come back again -- in this case, it was implied once again that more "skilled" players are not experiencing wobbling. We've been over that.

 

 

 

 

He flew the 109 in combat, and he flew the BoS 109 on my simulator. And he said the opposite than you (sim is less sensitive than the real plane). Whom shall I believe, you or him ?

 

Any more questions ?

 

I'll absolutely trust whatever he has to say about the 109. But you need to be more specific regarding his feedback, so yes, I do have more questions. When he says more sensitive, what does he mean? What axis specifically is more sensitive? In what regime of flight? At what airspeeds? What does he think of the rudder authority of the 109? Could you really input max rudder deflection in the 109 and not be able to fully counter it with full aileron? How about the oscillations once pitch inputs are returned to (joystick) neutral, specifically with regard to the yaw axis? These are just some of the questions this issue raises.

 

Just saying "he says the real thing is more sensitive" isn't as much of a conversation-ender as some here might hope.

 

So do you think it's possible that players who can control this in the game are doing it in the same way a real pilot does, that is by not overcorrecting and not having inputs out of phase?

Also consider that it's possible to slam the stick around in these planes without any force on the controls in a way that would be impossible in reality?

 

You raise a great point here. One thing I'd offer, though, is that I'd expect a sim to limit the range of motion of controls as airspeed (and subsequent air loads on the control surfaces) increases, which this sim in fact does. For example, in a high-speed dive (to quantify, let's say in excess of 600 kph), you can pull your joystick back to it's limit, but recovery will be much slower based on the simulated stick forces. Most sims do this, even the original IL2.

 

So now that we've established that this sort of simulating of air loads exists, it should also apply to all phases of flight (albeit reduced when you're slower). As was stated many pages back, one of the possible causes of this wobbling was that simulated air loads aren't great enough.

 

Additionally, overcorrecting is all relative. Anything outside of 3 degrees of heading change on an ILS is probably considered overcorrecting by most. In contrast to that, I've done gun defense drills where you roll nearly inverted and literally pull the stick back to your lap with both hands, as hard as you can (no exaggeration...below corner velocity, of course). I've also done the same defense without rolling inverted, when close to the simulated floor for that day. Upon releasing the stick to neutral, the nose does, in fact, rapidly return to its previous AoA (pretty close to it, at least), but I've never experienced any of this "side-to-side" wobble about the pitch axis before. The T-6 was in excess of 1200 HP, for the record. I've done the same thing in other aircraft, but those were all jets, so no need to really discuss that here.

 

Bottom line: BFM, when you're in the thick of it, with no ability to separate or escape, is a violent, sweat-inducing act. Overcorrecting is all relative.

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Anyways, I'm happy to discuss my experiences if anyone actually cares, but I think I'll sign off when it comes to this thread. I've already insulted some members, and risk appearing as if I'm calling out a veteran who flew the 109. We've droned on now for 13 pages with little progress, and most of that is repeating the same discussion every 4 pages or so.

 

Enjoy this game for what it has to offer, because the devs have put together a truly wonderful product. If you'd like a sim that -- in my opinion only -- models pitch and yaw stability more accurately, look no further than the P-51 and Bf-109 modules in DCS. DCS has its own issues (we could go on for 13 pages about that too), but it's also extremely enjoyable.

 

We're pretty lucky to have so much good stuff available to us as simmers.

[PeterZvan]

Why would you want the transition sharp instead of smooth? It seems like having an abrupt change in the response isn't a good idea. Otherwise this above is just a segmented S-curve.

On takeoff you normally have the stick full back and then center it. Segmenting the response might be trouble there.

 

Planes that would need such a curve are the planes which are very sensitive.

Its for the planes where on all non stall saving / inducing dogfighting maneuvers it is enough to use 70% of the stick range.

 

With this kind of curve setup you get the complete dogfighting range less responcive (as with a normal linear curve it is too responcive), it remains completly linear in this range so very predictable and you get also the complete top movement range - of course with a severe penalty of the big change in the end of the range, however at that point it is not needed to have precise control and therefore this compromise is acceptable.

 

Have a go at the DXTweak test I made to see how the 109 can be made much less nervous and with a linear responce.

[KoN_]

 

 

 

He flew the 109 in combat, and he flew the BoS 109 on my simulator. And he said the opposite than you (sim is less sensitive than the real plane). Whom shall I believe, you or him ?

 

Any more questions ?

Please explain .

[Sparviero_ITA]

Please explain .

 

Again?....no plz! 

13 pages about false leads from the main topic i think it's enough!

It's look like neverending story!:D

Edited December 23, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[JtD]

It hasn't been. Just a lot of conjecture and opinion.

Well, that might be your filtered perception, but there have been quantified comparisons between real life data and in game performance that have shown significant differences.

 

Not sure about the Yak-1, but if the external model can be trusted, it's 24° up and 19° down.

A secondary source states that it was 24/21, except for Yak-1's from factory 301, which came with 26/22 (early production).

[PeterZvan]

Finnaly I managed to make a curve as described above.

Sokol very helpfuly pointed me to a software which allows this: (tnx again  )

 

http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=382944327

 

So I followed the instructions and made a curve for only the pitch axis.

I didnt do it exactly as they did it, I used the multiplier responce modifier - this way it is much easier to make a linear function for a big range.

In the picture below you can see my setting - its a quick and simple setting and I even used trim to compensate the un-symetric deflections.

This way 109 becomes very tame and predictable and the full range is retained.

Not sure if I will use it. Perhaps I will, but more agressive than the one in the picture.

 

One trick that I needed to do was for the axis mapping - ingame it didnt want to really do it so I had to manualy rename the axis for the joystick in the input folder in the current.actions file -> I modified the line:

rpc_pitch,                                        joy4_axis_y,                                      0|

I have 3 joysticks and the virtual joystick got the #4 as its id.

 

 

BTW: If you do this - ingame you should use 0 deadzones, 0 sensitivity and 0 noise filtering

[PeterZvan]

A bit updated - a bit faster responce, axis trim to position the elevator of the 109 (G2 / F4) to neutral position when the joystick is in the center position.

[BlitzPig_Bill_Kelso]

A bit updated - a bit faster responce, axis trim to position the elevator of the 109 (G2 / F4) to neutral position when the joystick is in the center position.

 

How would this work with other aircraft in the game? Say for the 190 for example.

[L3Pl4K]

 

 

The too high performance of the Yak-1 at 4000m+ has been proven many times. I don't think it's even disputed by anyone, who has spend 5 minutes to check it himself. That doesn't mean that it's balanced. Otherwise the F-4 wouldn't be too fast as well, which certain people always forget to mention for some reason.

When both planes to fast, why the devs do not fix this?

[PeterZvan]

More or less the same - just change the trim as the 190 dosent seem to have such asymetric elevetor deflection.

Acctually the program is very versitile and you can make multiple profiles easily, assign hotkeys and than change the profile during flight.

Therefore you can make a profile for each and every plane and just call it up via hotkey during flight.

One could even use different profiles for the same plane and change then during the flight depending on the situaion (a very unsensitive one for long range aiming, a sensitive one for stall fighting....). However that does mess with your overall feel and its better to use one profile on one plane.

Edited December 24, 2015 by PeterZvan

[Sparviero_ITA]

A bit updated - a bit faster responce, axis trim to position the elevator of the 109 (G2 / F4) to neutral position when the joystick is in the center position.

Hi PeterZvan.

 

Frist thing thanks for giving us the knowledge about your test whit JC,personally i had used it in IL 2 Cod for pedals,but i need a little bit explain about a issue to add more device.

My Warthog work great whit JC,but dosent enable even the second periferic,the rudder.

JC show my second device (the rudder) and i have enable it in vJoy # 2 ,the vJoy #1 enable the Warthog,but it dosent work,and i have also tried every different axis,,,just in case,but nothing.

Do you know what's the right procedure for add multi device in JC?

 

Thx in advance and...Happy Christmas Time.....even to the Soviet pilots of course!

Edited December 24, 2015 by Ltn_F_Baracca

[Quax]

1  When he says more sensitive, what does he mean?

2  What does he think of the rudder authority of the 109?

3  Could you really input max rudder deflection in the 109 and not be able to fully counter it with full aileron?

 

1. angle of stick movement  vs  reaction of the plane  (this is no problem, as most virtual pilots have normal joysticks - so it is a necessary compromise)

 

2. perfect 

 

3. No - this is a problem of the FM  (I did report this already a year ago to the devs - it has been improved, but there is still room for improvement). The rudder induces too much roll. 

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

3. No - this is a problem of the FM (I did report this already a year ago to the devs - it has been improved, but there is still room for improvement). The rudder induces too much roll.

Glad I'm not the only one fighting to get that issue solved. Infact most planes jn BoS suffer from that issue, heck it's even present with some RoF planes.

 

The only plane I found out reacting normally to rudder inputs is infact the Bf-110. You can slip very nicely with it and still have some excess aileroun rabge to correct drifting, which is not the case on almost every other fighter in BoS.

Edited December 24, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[PeterZvan]

Hi PeterZvan.

 

Frist thing thanks for giving us the knowledge about your test whit JC,personally i had used it in IL 2 Cod for pedals,but i need a little bit explain about a issue to add more device.

My Warthog work great whit JC,but dosent enable even the second periferic,the rudder.

JC show my second device (the rudder) and i have enable it in vJoy # 2 ,the vJoy #1 enable the Warthog,but it dosent work,and i have also tried every different axis,,,just in case,but nothing.

Do you know what's the right procedure for add multi device in JC?

 

Thx in advance and...Happy Christmas Time.....even to the Soviet pilots of course!

 

I think you need to add an additional tab if you want to use multile axis.

Look on the top -> it says  +Add new.

Add the axis you want and assign it and than all the axis which were done for that profile should work.

[CaK_Rumcajs]

I gave it a try and tested different sensitivity settings. Both slow near center and fast near center. With each I got some positive results but also negative results. After 2 hours of all that I returned to strictly linear responses and 0 filtering. No, this try to shift the debate from instability to response curves doesn't make sense. What we are seeing here are different stability settings. They may be amplified by different sensitivities but base for the directional instability behavior is ... simply put "directional instability". I have no way to know it simulated instability is within reasonable margin of error or not, but i strongly believe we shall focus on finding real world (in)stability responses. Anything else is doomed to have zero impact on the game.

[SharpeXB]

No, this try to shift the debate from instability to response curves doesn't make sense.

The trouble is that this issue is strongly related to controller sensitivity. Even if the FM in the game was flawless, as long as the player is using a small stick with no forces on it, the result will be imperfect. Using the linear default with a tabletop stick is always going to make PC sim planes seem jumpy.

Edited December 24, 2015 by SharpeXB

[CaK_Rumcajs]

The trouble is that this issue is strongly related to controller sensitivity. Even if the FM in the game was flawless, as long as the player is using a small stick with no forces on it, the result will be imperfect. Using the linear default with a tabletop stick is always going to make PC sim planes seem jumpy.

Yep i know, but there is a large difference in response of individual aircraft we have. This can't be attributed to sensitivity only. First of all the real world aircraft had different amount of directional stability. This must be somehow seen in the FM provided. So I say what we are seeing is different FM in the first place. Sensitivity comes into play but it's a minor issue here. The simple fact that instability can be countered by human input if treated slowly is not an argument. I'm not saying what we have in game is OK or wrong. As I said I have no way of knowing. But it's definitely directional instability a then maybe sensitivity to elevator input. Also compare the Bf 109 E7 versus F4. How do you explain the huge difference? Did the Germans design a more difficult to control airplane with the F generation? Or is there a different stability model in game? I guess it's the latter. (but again I have no way of knowing which is closer to reality)

[Sokol1]

 

 ...on Dec 18 2015 - 09:32, said:

 Do you plan to implementation RoFo system setup axes joystick? Transfer it to the CPB (M, etc.) is associated with certain difficulties or is not a priority? 

 

Architectural no difficulties since Base is fully preserved. There are difficulties with the availability of resources for design and implementation of dialogue. Plus it is necessary to combine the current "easy" mode and the "difficult" because sophisticated units needed, despite the fact that thousands do not understand (one of the main problems of RoF, which repels potential players - the complexity of the control settings).

 

 

Edited December 25, 2015 by Sokol1