use of flaps in the 109

[Dave]

This is almost trivial to implement - but I do question its relative priority. Blocking the axis-mapped input (throttle) would be the wrong approach. Better would be to ignore the key-mapped input (flap extend/retract) for the duration of any concurrent throttle input. This would not benefit HOTAS users as the Target programming software simply automates the key strokes - which would be ignored just as completely as if they had been manually triggered. I think this is fair regardless of aircraft type - all the modern aircraft (with HOTAS controls) I've flown had the flap lever located off the throttle. Incidentally on the PC-9 this lever is below and obstructed by the PCL - which resulted in an aircraft loss in the circuit once.

[AndyJWest]

Blocking the axis-mapped input (throttle) would be the wrong approach. Better would be to ignore the key-mapped input (flap extend/retract) for the duration of any concurrent throttle input. This would not benefit HOTAS users as the Target programming software simply automates the key strokes - which would be ignored just as completely as if they had been manually triggered. 

 

They tried blocking simultaneous flap and throttle movement in Cliffs of Dover (as "anthropomorphic controls" in the difficulty settings) - it didn't really work, and caused no end of problems. The trouble was that you only needed the slightest jitter from the throttle to block the flap movement, when you least expected it.

Edited March 25, 2014 by AndyJWest

[Sternjaeger]

They tried blocking simultaneous flap and throttle movement in Cliffs of Dover (as "anthropomorphic controls" in the difficulty settings) - it didn't really work, and caused no end of problems. The trouble was that you only needed the slightest jitter from the throttle to block the flap movement, when you least expected it.

 

well that can be adjusted. I still feel it's an important thing to implement, if anything to ensure accuracy and realism.

 

Not a fan of the "tentacled pilots" as I call them.. learn to fly properly, don't try and cheat by using your multi-buttoned peripherals.. 

[Sokol1]

Did some test with flaps control - Bf 109:

 

I can assign control to mouse wheel or joy throttle slider (axis):

 

 

But this dont represent "advantage" in flap control.

The time needed for flap drop/raise still the same using keys.

To get, for example 50% of flap you need move the slider down and the move up to stop flap on desired position.

Or, the slider (axis) act like a ON/OFF switch, no a proportional control, same with mouse scroll wheel. (1).

 

The only improvement(?) over keys (or button/HAT) is that is no need press and hold the command, just move the slider in one direction.

 

(1) Mouse scroll wheel (a encoder) work fine for control "Stabilizer Adjust", each "click" drop 1 on elevator scale.

 

For one with advanced HOTAS, times for drop Bf 109 flaps in bands:

 

 

This can be used, for example, in Warthog THR-FC dividing his axis in four bands and set timed press on each.

Again, one don't get "instant flap" (a la il-2' 2001) only a one move control, e.g. THR-FC ~25$% flap move to 10º (Combat Flaps), ~50% move to 20º... etc.

 

The guys of Cyrillic language already use this.

 

Sokol1

Edited March 25, 2014 by Sokol1

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 Interesting. Still not many pilots used flaps in Bf109 during combat. Maybe the most notorious was Marseille, but again he was a rare exception and a very skilled one.

[Nil]

well that can be adjusted. I still feel it's an important thing to implement, if anything to ensure accuracy and realism.

 

Not a fan of the "tentacled pilots" as I call them.. learn to fly properly, don't try and cheat by using your multi-buttoned peripherals.. 

Ok if I steer with my knees while I adjust throttle and flaps? Not that I adjust flaps much, other then landing.... guess what i'm pulling the trigger with ..

*huge Prins Albert*

 

 

Don't try to destroy this one too! With hated crap from a sim best left out of memory and out of our harddrives!

[Sternjaeger]

...wut? 

[Sokol1]

Why "it's only a game".

 

See 2:39.

 

Sokol1

Edited March 26, 2014 by Sokol1

[Eldur]

it takes some time (circa 25 half turns/30 secs) for a full deployment on the ground (it might take slightly more in the air), and whilst doing that you can't manage your throttle, so I thought could we implement this? As in, when the flaps are being deployed, the throttle input doesn't work until the deployment is complete?

 

This would just mean we can't play with the throttle or any other control inputs while rotating the flap control wheel. I think Cliffs of Dover has some kind of difficulty setting for this (anthropo-something). Generally this would ne a nice feature. The same would apply to lots of other things, like operating both the oil and water cooler shutters in the Il-2; one left, one right, can't be done at the same time while stirring around with the stick.

[Rama]

Anthropomorphic limitations are just a nightmare, makes game unplayable.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think they've been removed from CloD for this very reason.

 

The devs allready stated they wont be any in BoS, which is IMO a good thing.

[arjisme]

I don't have direct experiencing using anthropomorphic limitations in flight sims, but I like the idea in principle.  I read Rama's statement as "Anthropomorphic limitations [as implemented to date in previous flight sims] are just a nightmare."  The issue is how they were implemented.  It might be an insurmountable goal to simulate this in some fashion, but I think there is merit in kicking around ideas on how a good system more in line with the real experience could be implemented.  The problems seem to be pretty big ones (variability of HW being the biggest), but I don't think past failures should preclude the search for a better way.

 

And all of that is academic for BoS, given the dev's response that they aren't implementing them.  But if some stroke of brilliance resulted in a good approach that could work with minimal flaws, their decision could change in a future update.

[Rama]

I read Rama's statement as .../...

Sure, you can read it that way....

 

My opinion is that it is not achievable to do it without making it a nightmare for the players. The reason is that when there's no simple and quickly understandable relation between the state of your input devices (position of the throtle and the stick) and the result in the game, then there's no way it will not confuse the player and make the whole experience a nightmare.

Curently in BOS, and in most of other simulation, the only things changing this relation are the input curves... and as simple as this relation is, it allready confuses some players and is probably one of the big reason for overcontrol.... now, if you change this relation with an eratic one, related to other actions of the players (for example, sometimes the throttle will have an action, sometimes not... and if it try to restore the previous relation related to the real position of the throttle, then you will have disturbing jump in the game input). There's no simple way to solve this (if any), and there's no simple way to make your actions on the input devices (by nature controlled only by your hand actions) understood as something totally different (as it should? be) without loosing the player in bizare world.

 

The only way to achieve this, is to force the player to use a real cockpit, connected to the simulation and with motorized input devices to give "real" aerodynamic forces feedback.

That's something you have only in pro simulators.

[Sokol1]

Anthropomorphic limitations are just a nightmare, makes game unplayable.

This specific feature in such game always been optional - no one was forced to use - and continues available today (TF patch's).

 

People say that is make game "nightmare" (for people with controls with fault potentiometers, my stick with DIY Hall sensor dont give me any problem using this, although this is not valid as reference) because to date the feature are only tried in Cl+D, a nightmare at release per si.

If this were the only game problem he would serve as reference, but no, what could be going wrong with it, happened, down to simple things like translation errors affecting the gameplay. Why I think that use Cl+D as argument to deny features is foolish. He was "unplayable" not because this o that feature, but being (optimistic) in Alpha stage!

 

On other way he implement nice things, like for example "Map Tools", a must for bomber pilots, but now we can't have this in another game just because Cl+D use?

 

Other games - not BoS because is already stated the game will not implement this - eventually could implement this "anthropomorfic controls" without involve analog axis, the cause of issues, or for secondary controls only...

 

Anyway this kind of "simulation" (IMO) is a waste of work/time, like ejection sequence in Jet's games (BMS, DCS...) requiring different actions, but people just map these actions to one "Warthog" button with scripts. So, why?

 

Sokol1

[Rama]

 He was "unplayable" not because this o that feature, but being (optimistic) in Alpha stage!

No, I don't think this is the reason. The reason is IMO inherent to the feature itself (trying to simulate something without a the possibility to establish a correct relation with the input device used by the simmer).

I gave an explanation why it will allways be a nightmare, either in alpha, or beta or wathever status of the game.

[Matt]

Then they should also add that two buttons/switches/levers that were not next to each other in the real cockpit have to be placed on seperate controllers.

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

The problem is, as stated before, that our controllers aren't perfect! They have spiking which renders some input inoperable
when anthropomorfic control are enabled. For instance I have flaps, gear and radiators on dual saitek throttles and the standard
throttle on the WH and if that system was enabled I'd never be able to use the throttle since the saiteks "spikes" constantly giving
small inputs all the time.

[Rama]

The problem is, as stated before, that our controllers aren't perfect! They have spiking .../...

No, this isn't The problem, it's just part of the problem, and even a little part of it.

The major part of the problem is that most user's input device conf (User's "cockpit") has ergonomically nothing to do with a real cockpit... and that's something you can't "fix".

[Sternjaeger]

yes you can, as discussed earlier.

[BraveSirRobin]

No, you can't.  And Rama explained very clearly why not.  

[arjisme]

The game includes pause and auto pilot features. When those are used you can also change your PC hardware positions so that they are no longer in sync with the game. Of course, when you disable those and then move your PC hardware it can cause a jarring input, but I never considered it a nightmare. It is something you learn quickly to deal with (when using those features, don't adjust PC inputs).

 

The same could be true for anthropomorphic controls. The player needs to understand that adjusting prop pitch (say in LaGG) cannot be done at the same time as adjusting throttle. So he refrains from trying. The penalty for ignoring this is that non-synced HW issue. It isn't perfect, sure, but it is hardly a nightmare.

 

A couple of other examples in game today where HW is not necessarily in sync with the sim controls: air starts and ground starts where the engine is already running.

 

Regarding the spiking issue, it might be that providing filters could address that.

[BraveSirRobin]

The difference is that autopilot is not intended to increase realism, so wacky unrealistic actions should be expected.  Anthropomorphic controls are intended to increase realism.  However, that purpose is completely defeated by the wacky unrealistic results.  What is the point of adding a feature intended to increase realism when in practice it does the opposite?

It's a moot point, anyways.  They're not doing it.

[arjisme]

I think the all or nothing approach is self defeating.  If it must be perfect, it can never be realized.  If you read my earlier comment here, it is not my intent that we add things that do the opposite of increasing realism.  The intent is to discuss whether there is a possible solution that would improve realism.  And my point in raising autopilot, air start, mission start with engine running and pause scenarios was to show situations that are similar in the way that controls can be out of sync but that those situations are manageable.

 

Regarding "moot point", this also I already addressed in my previous comment.

[Rama]

The penalty for ignoring this is that non-synced HW issue. It isn't perfect, sure, but it is hardly a nightmare.

It is a nightmare.

When you learn to fly in real, you build automated actions. If you need to figure why the rpm lever is fully pushed and your rpm is 1500 when it should be 2700... and you can't have it without a short analyse, because there could be mutliple reasons for this (flap input, trim input, knob action, engine almost dead, etc....), then you can't build these automated action and have an instand clear view of the situation. (and that's only one example... you can find many and pile weird situation on weird situations, antropomorphic limitation is nothing but a big can of worm).

It's totally counter-intuitive and has nothing to do with what you would feel in a real cockpit flying a real plane.... so it's not "flying simulation", it's "body action simulation" that bring you away from the core of what it should be...

 

So yes, you can learn and finally got some quick answer after a long time learning (quick but still very long compared to "normal").... but what do you want: an approximative "body action simulation", or something more related to a flying simulation, supposed (at least to me) to bring you as close as possible to flying sensation?

I mean.... you could also add any kind of difficulty into the gameplay, vaguelly related to flying... will it make imersion better? IMO no.

it is not my intent that we add things that do the opposite of increasing realism.

Then your proposal contradict your intent.... Anthropomorphic limitation will decrease realism of "flying feeling"...

You can argue (and be maybe right, even if I doubt), that it would increase the "physical reality according to body limitation", but to the detriment of the first.

What's more important in a flying simulation? The flying feeling, or the supposed pleasure we could get from the body limitation being taken in account?

 

those situations are manageable.

Certainly... manageable... but less immersive and less realistic.

[Rama]

I think the all or nothing approach is self defeating.

There's something you can't negate, it's that the player input device conf has nothing to do with a real cockpit... or can you?

Starting from this reality check, the normal deduction would be that every kind of antropomorphic limitation would be purelly artificial.

Is it then really important? especially if you care about imersion and flying feeling?

[BraveSirRobin]

I think the all or nothing approach is self defeating. 

 

Actually, the self defeating part is the idea that including a feature that introduces all sorts of unrealistic situations is being done in the name of realism.