What's the wobbling thing ?

[indiaciki]

I think it's a serious limitation of flight control hardware

[Cavemanhead]

I think it's a serious limitation of flight control hardware

 

Nope, using a Warthog and Mfg Crosswind pedals...  And, know all about compensating through sensitivity curve adjustment, deadzones, etc...  It's not the flight control hardware...

[indiaciki]

I get that you use the best hardware but digital hardware isn't comparable to the forces you experience flying a real plane. Not on your controls and not on your senses. You're still flying in a vacuum as far as physics and controls are concerned. 

 

something like that:

 

Edited December 6, 2015 by indiaciki

[andyw248]

Got some rubberbanding on one of my flights into Ranger Creek (21W) earlier this year (August). High temperatures in the afternoon, combined with some light wind, created some "interesting" turbulence:

 

https://youtu.be/1wl8KTMWYp4?t=37s

 

[Guest deleted@50488]

Great video!

 

What were you flying ?

 

 

And yes, in my glider I get a LOT of that - but we love it :-)

 

Anyway, it's unfortunately not the same sort of ruberbanding I experience in IL-2 BoS :-/

Edited December 6, 2015 by JCOMM

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Got some rubberbanding on one of my flights into Ranger Creek (21W) earlier this year (August). High temperatures in the afternoon, combined with some light wind, created some "interesting" turbulence:

 

https://youtu.be/1wl8KTMWYp4?t=37s

I'm a little confused about your use of the expression "rubberbanding". Looks like your aircraft got shaked up by turbulences + thermals during that flight. To me this is not so much what I'd call "rubberbanding".

 

The "rubberbanding" effect is more related to how controll surfaces work. Take the rudder for example, if you push it into a direction it moves the nose, release pressure and the nose gets pushed back straight ahead. This is what I referr to as "rubberbanding". Now, as we know, pitch and roll work physically different from yaw. There's no "rubberbanding" with those controlls as with the yaw in reality. In BoS however pitch also feautuers a slight ammount of "rubberbanding", especially on light aircraft.

 

Sry if this is totally not what you meant, just wanted to explain how I understand "rubberbanding".

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[Dakpilot]

One of the problems is the speed that you can deflect a control surface, it would be hard to test but i guarantee the reaction time in pushing full down elevator deflection from neutral is much quicker than possible in real life 

 

Does anyone remember Eric Brown's (famous and very experienced WWII and later test pilot) joystick response settings from original IL-2, he felt they were an accurate setting for authentic feel based on his rather undeniable wide experience

 

Nobody used them much because having 'tie fighter' reactions was more desirable

 

I wonder if when using a full sized control stick and accurate control surface deflection speeds (and preferably accurate FFB) the wobbling would still remain an issue in BoS/BoM

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[ST_ami7b5]

 Try these settings in Key Mapping/controls BlitzPig_EL

 

Set input responses to 70% pitch and yaw, 50% roll and 8% centre dead zones

 

and under  Control devices set noise filter to 0.5

 

See if your 'wobbling' is greatly reduced as an experiment, you have nothing to lose    ​

 

Cheers Dakpilot

​ 

 

Helped a lot, thanks!

[Quax]

 There's no "rubberbanding" with those controlls as with the yaw in reality. In BoS however pitch also feautuers a slight ammount of "rubberbanding", especially on light aircraft.

 

 

You are wrong here. Turbulence causes pitch changes, And that gives you the same inertia effect ("rubberbanding") as if you kick the rudder. Just the angles envolved are smaller. 

If I "shake" the yoke, passengers can´t feel the difference to "real" turbulence. 

 

Nice vid Andreas !  Cool strip in the woods.

 

 

 

I wonder if when using a full sized control stick and accurate control surface deflection speeds (and preferably accurate FFB) the wobbling would still remain an issue in BoS/BoM

 

 

I never had any wobbling with my full sized stick. But the good guys don´t have any wobbling with normal sticks as well (check the Mk.Mr.X vids)

Edited December 6, 2015 by Quax

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

You are wrong here. Turbulence causes pitch changes, And that gives you the same inertia effect ("rubberbanding") as if you kick the rudder. Just the angles envolved are smaller. 

If I "shake" the yoke, passengers can´t feel the difference to "real" turbulence. 

 

I never had any wobbling with my full sized stick. But the good guys don´t have any wobbling with normal sticks as well (check the Mk.Mr.X vids)

shaking is a little different form applying a smooth input and letting the stick center again. rubberbanding is not so much about inertia, but about the plane feeling like it's tied with rubbers to the hosrizontal plane. If you pull up  ingame for like 5° and let the stick center within 1 sec the nose will stop and later drop down half way again like it's being pulled back by a rubber. That's nothing like what I knwo form my flight expirience.

[SharpeXB]

Take the rudder for example, if you push it into a direction it moves the nose, release pressure and the nose gets pushed back straight ahead. This is what I referr to as "rubberbanding".

That's what should happen in that circumstance. When you apply the rudder, say to the right, your plane isn't turning right, it's just skidding right, it's path of travel is still mostly along the same path as before. So when you release the rudder it should return to that path.

 

Watch at 3:57 here

 

http://youtu.be/pvhztNpRQF4

Edited December 6, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Nocke]

 Try these settings in Key Mapping/controls BlitzPig_EL

 

Set input responses to 70% pitch and yaw, 50% roll and 8% centre dead zones

 

and under  Control devices set noise filter to 0.5

 

See if your 'wobbling' is greatly reduced as an experiment, you have nothing to lose    ​

 

Cheers Dakpilot

​ 

That changed my flying experience. Had responses to 10%, no dead zone, and noise reduction 0.1 before. Feels MUCH more convincing now.

And I can hit stuff much better now

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

That's what should happen in that circumstance. When you apply the rudder, say to the right, your plane isn't turning right, it's just skidding right, it's path of travel is still mostly along the same path as before. So when you release the rudder it should return to that path.

 

Watch at 3:57 here

 

Yea I know that. That effect does only account for rudder in reality though, ingame it's present for pitch axis causing "wobbling" when centering the stick after AoA changes.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[ST_ami7b5]

hmmm...

[Turban]

hmmm...

 

Not sure what your point is ? If it is to show how "clean" a 21st century aerobatic aircraft flies... well, you really can't compare them to anything else, these things are build for around pilot control

 

Plus, they can wobble real hard too

 

 

 

 

One of the problems is the speed that you can deflect a control surface, it would be hard to test but i guarantee the reaction time in pushing full down elevator deflection from neutral is much quicker than possible in real life 

 

Does anyone remember Eric Brown's (famous and very experienced WWII and later test pilot) joystick response settings from original IL-2, he felt they were an accurate setting for authentic feel based on his rather undeniable wide experience

 

Nobody used them much because having 'tie fighter' reactions was more desirable

 

I wonder if when using a full sized control stick and accurate control surface deflection speeds (and preferably accurate FFB) the wobbling would still remain an issue in BoS/BoM

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

 

 

Not quoting you for this post in particular, but  t think you have a very good point overall, the pilot/sim interface has a big responsability in what we get from the game. Not only our input is often not well calibrated for the FM, and then it's on a screen and it comes out weird..

 

But aircraft wobling is a real thing, and I think the FM really isn't too far off.

 

Cheers

Edited December 6, 2015 by Turban

[ST_ami7b5]

Not sure what your point is ? If it is to show how "clean" a 21st century aerobatic aircraft flies... well, you really can't compare them to anything else, these things are build for around pilot control

 

Plus, they can wobble real hard too

...

 

My point is, that planes in BoS can do the same

Try to move the stick full right or left and immediatelly return the stick to the centre - behaves like in the vid, just a bit slower, no horizontal wobbbing 

[Quax]

shaking is a little different form applying a smooth input and letting the stick center again. 

 

I did explain the smooth input as well, together with a diagram (about a year ago). Nobody proofed that wrong so far:

 

 

 

 

 

Why you pull "smooth", your plane is in a circle. y corresponds to the higher g load. As soon as you release the stick the nose "rubberbands" to x AOA.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Quax

[SharpeXB]

hmmm...

[/size]

Watch the control input. The way he stops the roll instantly is with a quick opposite input. Otherwise the intertia would continue him in that direction. That's exactly how to control this in BoS and RoF.

The roll axis isn't as susceptible to rebounding either since its symmetrical. When you roll and let go unless you're rolling really fast, the plane will stay in that bank when you center the control. That's normal. The pitch and yaw axis are not symmetrical in terms of airflow.

What's also interesting is to see how little he moves the stick in pitch, even pulling hard into those loops. That's the issue with these sim games. The real stick hardly moves at all, it's almost like just applying force to it as opposed to actuall moving it.

Edited December 6, 2015 by SharpeXB

[ST_ami7b5]

Watch the control input. The way he stops the roll instantly is with a quick opposite input. Otherwise the intertia would continue him in that direction. That's exactly how to control this in BoS and RoF.

The roll axis isn't as susceptible to rebounding either since its symmetrical. When you roll and let go unless you're rolling really fast, the plane will stay in that bank when you center the control. That's normal. The pitch and yaw axis are not symmetrical in terms of airflow.

What's also interesting is to see how little he moves the stick in pitch, even pulling hard into those loops. That's the issue with these sim games. The real stick hardly moves at all, it's almost like just applying force to it as opposed to actuall moving it.

I agree completely Sharpie, as I said you can do these things in BoS.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

What's also interesting is to see how little he moves the stick in pitch, even pulling hard into those loops. That's the issue with these sim games. The real stick hardly moves at all, it's almost like just applying force to it as opposed to actuall moving it.

Maybe because it's a stuntplane that's designed to pull lots of Gs easilyat low speeds? You can't compare that to either normal civil aircraft nor WW2 fighter aircraft. The Extra 300 for example has a symmetrical airfoild for low stability, which usually is t be avoided.

 

Can't watch the video due to GEMA though...

 

I did explain the smooth input as well, together with a diagram (about a year ago). Nobody proofed that wrong so far:

 

 

 

 

 

Why you pull "smooth", your plane is in a circle. y corresponds to the higher g load. As soon as you release the stick the nose "rubberbands" to x AOA.

That's only the case for crazy high ammounts of pulls. If you pull normally allowing the air flow to change and release pressure, acceleration forces will work against gravity and hold the nose steady at it's angle steadily. That's not exactly how "rubberbanding" works, although I've to admint it's very hard to explain.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Stab/JG26_5tuka

[SharpeXB]

Maybe because it's a stuntplane that's designed to pull lots of Gs easilyat low speeds? You can't compare that to either normal civil aircraft nor WW2 fighter aircraft.

Right. Whether or not that's correct for the WWII planes in BoS I have no idea. But it's interesting to notice here.

[Guest deleted@50488]

As far as I know, to give an example, the P40-E was known to show neutral pitch stability for positive pitch inputs and positive stability for negative ( pitch down ) perturbations, so, if we pull the stick and return it back to it's neutral position, the aircraft will initiate a phugoid and seek it's previous trimmed speed... 

 

For pitch up inputs, the aircraft would maintain the new pitch attitude, so, there shouldn't even be a wobbling for pitch up inputs.

 

The pitching moments make sense, when positive pitch stability is a characteristic of the aircraft, but the way they return so suddenly when the stick is brought back to it's trimmed neutral state is just too abrupt, and that's what causes that rubber band effect / feel, as if the nose was tied to a rubber.  It should return, that's ok, but not that way...

[Quax]

The change of AOA is abrupt. As abrupt as you release the stick, because only the deflection of the elevator causes the g-load. If it would return slowly, it would be wrong, as returning to another trimmed speed has nothing to do with it.

 

F.e. if you pull 6 g, the corresponding AOA is more than 6 times of the AOA of the released stick straight flight. If you have an AOA of f.e. 14 degrees at g load, it rubberbands back to f.e. 2 degrees AOA for straight flight.

That makes a change of 12 degrees pitch down within fractions of a second when releasing the stick abrupt. And now check how 10 degrees pitch change looks like ! That´s much more than you ever saw in BoS.

 

In RL no pilot would do such an abrupt stick release. But in front of a PC it is no problem for your body to endure.

Edited December 6, 2015 by Quax

[[APAF]VR_Spartan85]

Got some rubberbanding on one of my flights into Ranger Creek (21W) earlier this year (August). High temperatures in the afternoon, combined with some light wind, created some "interesting" turbulence:

 

https://youtu.be/1wl8KTMWYp4?t=37s

Wow that was some sug landing well done!

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

The change of AOA is abrupt. As abrupt as you release the stick, because only the deflection of the elevator causes the g-load. If it would return slowly, it would be wrong, as returning to another trimmed speed has nothing to do with it.

 

F.e. if you pull 6 g, the corresponding AOA is more than 6 times of the AOA of the released stick straight flight. If you have an AOA of f.e. 14 degrees at g load, it rubberbands back to f.e. 2 degrees AOA for straight flight.

That makes a change of 12 degrees pitch down within fractions of a second when releasing the stick abrupt. And now check how 10 degrees pitch change looks like ! That´s much more than you ever saw in BoS.

 

In RL no pilot would do such an abrupt stick release. But in front of a PC it is no problem for your body to endure.

Sry, I don't know what you are at. I referr to normal cruise flight (300-400km/h) and small pitch changes where the 109 in particular behaves very unstable while you point at extreme conditions.

[andyw248]

 

 

I'm a little confused about your use of the expression "rubberbanding". Looks like your aircraft got shaked up by turbulences + thermals during that flight. To me this is not so much what I'd call "rubberbanding". The "rubberbanding" effect is more related to how controll surfaces work. Take the rudder for example, if you push it into a direction it moves the nose, release pressure and the nose gets pushed back straight ahead. This is what I referr to as "rubberbanding". Now, as we know, pitch and roll work physically different from yaw. There's no "rubberbanding" with those controlls as with the yaw in reality. In BoS however pitch also feautuers a slight ammount of "rubberbanding", especially on light aircraft. Sry if this is totally not what you meant, just wanted to explain how I understand "rubberbanding".

 

Honestly I don't know the correct definition of "rubberbanding" either. So far I was under the impression that this was about the pitching and yawing in steep turns when getting close to a high speed stall. Hence my video "proof" of the same thing when turning a real plane at about 1.4 times stall speed, with the help of a little turbulence. But you're right, regarding "rubberbanding" my attempt was just wild guessing...

 

From your explanation I understand:

• Rudder: Apply some rudder - the aircraft will yaw in that direction, and start banking. Release rudder - the aircraft will yaw back to straight flight. Is this correct or incorrect? Don't know, will have to try next time I go up.
• Elevator: Apply some elevator, let's say pull the stick - the aircraft will change its AOA and reduce speed (now what do you need to hold it at that AOA? Keep the stick pulled?). Release elevator back to what it was before - the aircraft will pitch down and approximately resume its previous AOA and speed. Correct or incorrect? I'd say this is correct, but will have to try as well.

In any case I'd like to understand whether that's what's called "rubberbanding".

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

• Rudder: Apply some rudder - the aircraft will yaw in that direction, and start banking. Release rudder - the aircraft will yaw back to straight flight. Is this correct or incorrect? Don't know, will have to try next time I go up.
• Elevator: Apply some elevator, let's say pull the stick - the aircraft will change its AOA and reduce speed (now what do you need to hold it at that AOA? Keep the stick pulled?). Release elevator back to what it was before - the aircraft will pitch down and approximately resume its previous AOA and speed. Correct or incorrect? I'd say this is correct, but will have to try as well.

In any case I'd like to understand whether that's what's called "rubberbanding".

Before going on I should explain I draw most of my expirience from (unpowered) glider flying, so the aerodynamicly most "clean" way.

 

Point 1 is totally correct, when releasing rudder the airrcaft will keep it's bank angle though. As for the second one it's depending weather you view normal cruise flight speed and small pitch changes (like me) or extreme cases like Quax.

If I fly a glider trimmed for ccruise speed (~110km/h) and pull the stick slightly increasing my AoA by 5° the nose will rise up and stay there fine. That's because the plane, although only 400kg in weight, has enought ineertia to keep it up against gravity, even in an unpowered glider. I can achieve this even with harsh and promt inputs if I do not exeed a certain AoA, which you usually don't do in cruise flight anyway.

 

Back to rubberbanding. Imagine rubberbanding like a second force that as soon as you apply pitch works against it. It's not like an inertia, which dampens the acceleration, but a constant force. As soon as you center your stick this force pushes the nose in the opposite direction of your input depending on how much you pulled/pushed the nose. I'm not talking about nose drop due to exeeding AoAs or liftloss here. It's literally like the plane is stabilised by springs counteracting and pitch movement you make with a steady force.

[Guest deleted@50488]

I think there is probably a very simple way of putting it all.

 

AoA variations create pitching moments.

 

Airfoils and the aircraft they equip have specific responses to perturbations in pitch, and can try or not try to return to their trimmed AoA / speed. That return is termed pitch stability, and has static and dynamic components. Most ww2 fighters behaved differently when pitch up or pitch down inputs were applied. The P51d is well known to be, under a wide range of CoG positions, neutral for positive pitch perturbations from trimmed state, meaning it'll try to stay at the pitch it was left at, while for pitching down inputs, it'll initiate a series of oscillations, of decreasing amplitude, returning to the trimmed state it was at before the perturbation took place.

 

The problem with IL-2 BoS is not this. After further testing I even believe that some aircraft correctly display neutral pitch stability for some inputs, but rather the very "fast", "sudden" return of the pitch ( and hence movement of the nose down or up, but more intensively when the stick is pulled... ) after such a perturbation.

 

Pick any IL2 fighter - the G2, for instance - trim it for level flight as good as you can, use 0 wind and turbulence for your tests.

 

Now, pull the stick, abruptly or not, and then return it to it's present neutral position. The nose will fall trying to catch the trimmed AoA very rapidly, as if it was tied to the flight path plane by a rubber band. That's what most of us call the "rubber band effect" or wobbling.

 

The aircraft also wobble a bit in yaw, a bit more than they probably should IMO, but yaw, and roll yaw couplings are another story....

 

For instance, I don't really find differences between IL2 and DCS, using the G2 in IL2 and the K4 in DCS with similar weights and power settings / speeds, when rudder is used without aileron and a rolling moment resulting from yaw-induced roll starts. Both sims pretty much respond in the very same way to this. What I believe is that there is probably too much effectiveness from the rudder, probably also not the correct sideforce due to sideslip and other effects that tend to compensate due to the roll and yaw stability properties of the aircraft, the effects of an uncoordinated turn. Of course I don't even try to compare it to my RL experience because gliders are a different story... We have huge adverse yaw, huge "over roll" effects ( as we call it in laymen speech at the airfield ... ) resulting in coordinated turns being maintained by cross inputs of rudder and aileron ), and for instance, most of the time, in days of tight thermals, when arriving what I believe is the right spot to start turning and centering, I apply full rudder ( with great effort because in almost every glider, the forces in rudder are hugely superior to the lightness of pitch and roll inputs ) and only after being in the turn do I use aileron to coordinate. The abrupt rudder input certainly rolls the glider, being it a K21 or a World Class PW-5.... ).

 

I believe that in terms of pitch response to control inputs, at any speed and AoA, but particularly at higher AoA, and also at any power settings, including engine out situations, thus not caused only by propwash effects, the way aircraft models behave in DCS World is more plausible than in IL-2 BoS. My Bf 109, my LagG3, my Fw190, ... all of my aircraft, are "too nervous" responding to pitch and yaw perturbations... They wobble, they return too fast in their short period stability oscillations to the trimmed AoA and beta... 

 

This is not a DCS vs IL-2 war!  Actually OTOH there are other aspects in DCS that I find worst modeled than in IL-2, and that's why, contrarily to what is my typical way of dealing with flight simulators, I can't give up using any of the two and concentrating only on the other... They're both SUPERB flight simulators, and they're both ( just as probably RoF also is ) an example of what we civil flight simming addicts would long like to have in MSFS, X-Plane, ....

Edited December 7, 2015 by JCOMM

[GP*]

I think there is probably a very simple way of putting it all.

 

AoA variations create pitching moments.

 

Airfoils and the aircraft they equip have specific responses to perturbations in pitch, and can try or not try to return to their trimmed AoA / speed. That return is termed pitch stability, and has static and dynamic components. Most ww2 fighters behaved differently when pitch up or pitch down inputs were applied. The P51d is well known to be, under a wide range of CoG positions, neutral for positive pitch perturbations from trimmed state, meaning it'll try to stay at the pitch it was left at, while for pitching down inputs, it'll initiate a series of oscillations, of decreasing amplitude, returning to the trimmed state it was at before the perturbation took place.

 

The problem with IL-2 BoS is not this. After further testing I even believe that some aircraft correctly display neutral pitch stability for some inputs, but rather the very "fast", "sudden" return of the pitch ( and hence movement of the nose down or up, but more intensively when the stick is pulled... ) after such a perturbation.

 

Pick any IL2 fighter - the G2, for instance - trim it for level flight as good as you can, use 0 wind and turbulence for your tests.

 

Now, pull the stick, abruptly or not, and then return it to it's present neutral position. The nose will fall trying to catch the trimmed AoA very rapidly, as if it was tied to the flight path plane by a rubber band. That's what most of us call the "rubber band effect" or wobbling.

 

The aircraft also wobble a bit in yaw, a bit more than they probably should IMO, but yaw, and roll yaw couplings are another story....

 

For instance, I don't really find differences between IL2 and DCS, using the G2 in IL2 and the K4 in DCS with similar weights and power settings / speeds, when rudder is used without aileron and a rolling moment resulting from yaw-induced roll starts. Both sims pretty much respond in the very same way to this. What I believe is that there is probably too much effectiveness from the rudder, probably also not the correct sideforce due to sideslip and other effects that tend to compensate due to the roll and yaw stability properties of the aircraft, the effects of an uncoordinated turn. Of course I don't even try to compare it to my RL experience because gliders are a different story... We have huge adverse yaw, huge "over roll" effects ( as we call it in laymen speech at the airfield ... ) resulting in coordinated turns being maintained by cross inputs of rudder and aileron ), and for instance, most of the time, in days of tight thermals, when arriving what I believe is the right spot to start turning and centering, I apply full rudder ( with great effort because in almost every glider, the forces in rudder are hugely superior to the lightness of pitch and roll inputs ) and only after being in the turn do I use aileron to coordinate. The abrupt rudder input certainly rolls the glider, being it a K21 or a World Class PW-5.... ).

 

I believe that in terms of pitch response to control inputs, at any speed and AoA, but particularly at higher AoA, and also at any power settings, including engine out situations, thus not caused only by propwash effects, the way aircraft models behave in DCS World is more plausible than in IL-2 BoS. My Bf 109, my LagG3, my Fw190, ... all of my aircraft, are "too nervous" responding to pitch and yaw perturbations... They wobble, they return too fast in their short period stability oscillations to the trimmed AoA and beta... 

 

This is not a DCS vs IL-2 war!  Actually OTOH there are other aspects in DCS that I find worst modeled than in IL-2, and that's why, contrarily to what is my typical way of dealing with flight simulators, I can't give up using any of the two and concentrating only on the other... They're both SUPERB flight simulators, and they're both ( just as probably RoF also is ) an example of what we civil flight simming addicts would long like to have in MSFS, X-Plane, ....

 

I just flew IL2 BoS for the first time in a while tonight. I need to do more testing before I post any conclusions, but my initial reactions are that the rubber banding, while still present, isn't as bad as it once was. 

 

In response to your post, the LaGG is a good example of an aircraft that exhibits minimal "wobbling." It flies pretty believably. On the other hand, the 109 is the worst offender (I haven't flow any BoM aircraft yet, so keep that in mind.) 

 

The hours I have in both a Steerman and a P-51, as well as around 200 hours in a T-6II, still lead me to believe that too much alpha / beta is introduced during aggressive maneuvering. I believe flight control surfaces maintain too much authority relative to the various speeds at which I've conducted some testing. 

 

However, I'm going to hold out until I can specifically quantify what we're all arguing for here before making any additional conclusions / definitive statements. 

 

For those still trying to figure out what we're going on about, think of it this way. For a long time, the flight sim community complained about aircraft flying "as if they were on rails." The easiest way to summarize the rubber banding / wobbling argument is that we've taken way too big of a step away from the "rails" that were once so often complained about. 

 

EDIT: and to all of those suggesting people adjust the curves on their joysticks to ~70%, consider this -- while this does help mitigate the problem, if people are having to reduce the effectiveness of their controls by SEVENTY PERCENT, there is something wrong...

Edited December 7, 2015 by Prefontaine

[Brano]

Setting input for 70% means only that 30% of the control surface movement is distributed over 70% of the stick movement in the nonlinear/exponential way.While it can help those with "nervous hands" IMO it is not a good way how to handle the stick and can lead to bad habits and very steep input in last 30% of the stick movement.

[Dakpilot]

My suggestion to use 70% sensitivity is for those that experience serious 'wobble' enough for them not to enjoy the game/sim, this would be a base setting and can show that it can be tuned out, adjusting further (less) to get a personal sweet spot will give good results.

 

The steeper input in the last 30% is not really a problem as if you are in the last 30% of stick travel you most likely are going for maximum deflection anyway.

 

Looking at the graphic while moving joystick in settings/curves will show you how this works, being able to set curves for each individual aircraft would be the perfect solution

 

It is interesting that Eric Browns curve settings for IL-2 (original) were much more severe with even less control surface movement

 

Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[Brano]

When I put those settings of mr.Brown into graph,they look only very slightly nonlinear.The pitch is almost as linear.Restricting control surfaces deflection to only 16-17% is really interesting.I do not know if we can put deadzone on the end of the response curve? I guess it is only possible around 0 coordinates.Away from gaming PC,cant try that,but would be interesting to try such limits,just out of curiosity

[Requiem]

When I put those settings of mr.Brown into graph,they look only very slightly nonlinear.The pitch is almost as linear.Restricting control surfaces deflection to only 16-17% is really interesting.I do not know if we can put deadzone on the end of the response curve? I guess it is only possible around 0 coordinates.Away from gaming PC,cant try that,but would be interesting to try such limits,just out of curiosity

Doing this is possible. For rudder in particular I limit the maximum software deflection to 80% so in-game that 80% response is "stretched" over the full deflection of my rudder pedals. I chose 80% since it is about the minimum I need to hold any aircraft straight on takeoff.

[SharpeXB]

For a long time, the flight sim community complained about aircraft flying "as if they were on rails." The easiest way to summarize the rubber banding / wobbling argument is that we've taken way too big of a step away from the "rails" that were once so often complained about.

 

And so if they change the flight model to make one group happy all that means is that another group will start complaining that the planes aren't wobbly enough. So there's no real way to win. That's happened in RoF despite the fact that the planes are all about a hundred years old and many don't have any sort of data available. That hasn't stopped the ceaseless arguing.

Also it's worth knowing that the FM of all theses planes are possibly related and asking for changes to one might mean unintended consequences for another. That's happened in RoF too. So be careful what you ask for.

Edited December 7, 2015 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@50488]

MSFS was one of the victims of the "on rails" argument, when indeed it is as on-rails as any other sim, one of the major differences laying in how the sim models turbulence, variable winds, and so on.

 

An aircraft in MSFS can bounce as well as one in IL-2 ( well, not quite like so, but .... ) provided an acceptable weather engine is used.

 

One of the features I find particularly well implemented, actually probably the best I've seen, in any sim is the way IL-2 BoS models airmass properties like turbulence, variable winds and even shear. It is very good, my preferred actually!

[Brano]

Doing this is possible. For rudder in particular I limit the maximum software deflection to 80% so in-game that 80% response is "stretched" over the full deflection of my rudder pedals. I chose 80% since it is about the minimum I need to hold any aircraft straight on takeoff.

Thanks for the tip.I will try that later when home

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Usings deadzones on high end of input curves is not a solution, it only circumvents the issue. Additionally, in cases where you require high to full controll surface deflection (stallfighting, flat spinning, landing) you'll miss it.

 

Similar thing with sensetivity leaving you with high inaccurancy at higher joystick deflections.

[Brano]

I just want to try it out of curiosity.No need to explain shortcomings of such setup

[GP*]

And so if they change the flight model to make one group happy all that means is that another group will start complaining that the planes aren't wobbly enough. So there's no real way to win. That's happened in RoF despite the fact that the planes are all about a hundred years old and many don't have any sort of data available. That hasn't stopped the ceaseless arguing.

Also it's worth knowing that the FM of all theses planes are possibly related and asking for changes to one might mean unintended consequences for another. That's happened in RoF too. So be careful what you ask for.

 

I understand what you mean. I've seen the same thing happen over the years. But I'm not too worried, what I'm asking for actually replicates reality better .

 

 

My suggestion to use 70% sensitivity is for those that experience serious 'wobble' enough for them not to enjoy the game/sim, this would be a base setting and can show that it can be tuned out, adjusting further (less) to get a personal sweet spot will give good results.

 

The steeper input in the last 30% is not really a problem as if you are in the last 30% of stick travel you most likely are going for maximum deflection anyway.

 

Looking at the graphic while moving joystick in settings/curves will show you how this works, being able to set curves for each individual aircraft would be the perfect solution

 

It is interesting that Eric Browns curve settings for IL-2 (original) were much more severe with even less control surface movement

 

Captain Eric Brown's Settings:

Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33

Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17

Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

 

 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

 

Well, there you have it. Capt Eric Brown, quite possibly one of the most experienced test pilots (particularly for WWII-era aircraft), suggested far more restrictive control surface deflections. And this was in IL2 FB, which was far more "on rails" than what we have now.

 

I remember when that report was first released, but had forgotten about it -- thanks for sharing.

[Guest deleted@50488]

Please let's not mix the two concepts - on rails vs wobbling in pitch and yaw - because:

 

- I like, as I have written many times, better than in any other sim I have EVER used,  the implementation of air mass instability, winds and their variation, both in BoS and,  as I was able to test one of these days although I do not use that sim yet, in RoF too, and find it as one of the most contributing factors, also in MSFS and X-Plane when good weather injectors are used, to not having a "on-raills" sensation of flight ( even if it makes sense most of the time while flying IRL... flying is not bumpy all of the time! );

 

- I find that the wobbling results from a totally different source in the flight dynamics model, as it can be experienced at any weather settings, and actually at any speed and AoA.

 

IL-2 BoS used to model control stiffness with dynamic pressure probably a bit more close to reality than it does now, but many users complained about loosing stick at higher speeds and being unable to recover...

 

I made a few tests with the G2 ( I believe the closest I have to the K4 in DCS, my only term of comparison since I used IL2 CloD for a while but gave up since both BoS and DCS provide me a way much more believable sensation of flight ) and I tried to determine rudder efficiency from low to top speed.  At low speeds the rudder authority looks overdone to me, and this can be one of the problems... Again at 700-800 km / h  I am still able to deflect the rudder more than I think a pilot would be IRL, the same applying to roll and pitch.

 

At all speeds I did my tests, the wobbling as a result from a pitch perturbation starting from a level flight trimmed state, or any other state, is present. The initial return to the trimmed "pitch" is sudden / abrupt IMO, not any close to what I have IRL, and can find, for instance and in as far as gliders are concerned, beautifully reproduced in my dear old Condorsoaring ( from 2007 ) where the aerodynamics of the various glider models are very plausible in many aspects,IMO...

 

I believe that the dev team, and particularly those on the team that also use IL-2 BoS, like Han, are certainly aware of the effect, and I am confident that, just as other aspects received fine tuning, we will probably see this particular aspect addressed in the future.

 

I have a problem though, in my evaluation of the wobbling effect, since I do not own a Force Feedback controller, and so, I can't tell if the effect is present when such a device is used instead of a conventional joystick ?  Honestly, I would be very glad to learn that indeed the effect results mainly from the fact that this simulation was designed and is optimized for the use of such hardware, and would then probably try to get a 2nd hand MS FFB2, if I could... 

 

Finally, the main reason why I, and certainly others who have posted in this and other threads, keep "fighting" for the fine tuning of pitch and yaw stability implementation in IL-2 BoS is certainly not detrimental, but rather, results from the fact that it is, in my case together and ex-aequo with DCS, my preferred flight simulation - since I use flight simulator, starting some 25+ yrs ago!

Edited December 8, 2015 by JCOMM