The adjustable stabilizer and trimms control (buttons / axis)

[AnPetrovich]

Hi pilots!

 

As a lead engineer I would like to hear community opinion about this matter.

 

I know two major claims against us related to the mapping of adjustable stabilizers and trimmers:

 

- When we allowed the mapping of the adjustable stabilizer to the axis we actually allowed players to mapped it on the same axis as the elevator. This allows players to control the pitch only one joystick in a wider range of angles of attack and g-load, particularly at high airspeed (when control surfaces partially blocked), not thinking about the need to manually handling the stabilizer. Even the adjustable stabilizer mapped to another axle, then the player is still no need to hold the button for a long time, he remove joystick axis fast enough to the new position, and the adjustable stabilizer will take this angle itself in a few seconds. In reality, the pilot has spent significant time and divert his attention to manually control the stabilizer for the new angle.

 

- When we not allowing to mapped trimmers on the axis we deprive the players the possibility to use free joystick axis for this, although trimmers control in reality are no different in essence from any other levers.

 

Now all this together creates an imbalance in the aircraft control in the online between the "red" and "blue" sides.

 

I draw your attention to the fact that the actual rate of change the angle of adjustable stabilizer in the game currently does not depend on the speed of move the axis. It only depends on the aircraft structure. This means that no matter how fast the player move the axis, the stabilizer will be moved from the restricted speed, with the one with which it would have been moved in a real airplane. So, now the stabilizer has a delay for a quick change of axis position.

 

The same situation will be if we decide to allow mapped trimms to the axis. The real rate of changing the trimm position will be just as limited, according to the pilots capabilities and aircraft structure.

 

Please, vote.

 

You can also vote in a similar poll on the Russian part of the forum.

 

P.S. Sorry for my English )) Google translator used...

[=V=Heromant]

Only buttons and need decrement of speed for change it states.

Sorry for my english

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

In my opinion trim operated by turn wheels or trim levers should be bindeable to an axis (including the Bf-109 stabilizer). Not only because an axis can simulate fluid motion way better than buttons but also because it's more convenient to use and some people like using extra gear such as Saitek's Cessna trim wheel.

 

Other aircraft with electrical trim may use only button trim, I'm fine with that.

 

Regading the Bf-109's stabilizer implementation, maybe it's possible to implement it as a stop motion rather than a fluid motion controll type. By that I mean that the wheel rotation will automaticly be stopped after let's say 1 sec of rotation for 0.25 sec to simulate the pilot having to reach over to the other end of the wheel before continuing to turn it. This video shows what I'm talking about: https://youtu.be/jenWQy4Zm-w?t=380

 

Result: People who use trim constantly (like those who bind it on their joystick's y-axis) will face jerky aircraft behaviour as a result of the pause caused by the stop motion trim disturbing their flight. Small trim increments on the other hand will basicly be uneffected as they don't use as much travel distance and thus don' require the pilot to reach over to the other end.

Edited September 22, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[Yogiflight]

Absolutely agree with 5tuka, this sounds to me like the best solution.

[Monostripezebra]

triming in increments suck.. and punishing people who want to fly realistically with some sort of trimwheel device is also not really ideal. But I disagree with Stuka, depending on settings it is not really "too jerky" and it can be a pretty gamebreaking exploit, that has also existed in other games.

 

My prefered solution would be to make the inital trim rate really slow and then normal after 0.5 sec or so. That way you would actually nerf the stick-axis-trim-coupling exploit substancially while not harming realistic trim speed and legit usage. The half second would fit very well into a timeframe it actually takes a pilot to grab for the trim wheel, so you could even see it as a bit of "anthropomorphic realism"

[AnPetrovich]

Sorry guys, I restarted the poll.

Now you can watch nicknames in "view votes".

[Extreme_One]

Trim should be on an axis, but not on an axis already controlling the elevator.

 

As long as the two axes are separate there's no aerodynamic advantage to be gained.

 

It's simply more convenient and part of the reason why we buy expensive HOTAS setups.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Don't want to drag this into a discussion, but those that believe restricting trimmers of all kinds to buttons is a solution for abuse are wrong. You can't limit people using external software like Joy2Key or advanced joystick drivers to let axis functions mimic button inputs and get the same advantage as before. It really punishes poeple who use trim in a not abusive more than real "exploiters".

 

As a side note, the same discussion happened over at DCS where the 109 just recently got it's stabilizer working on an axis. Back when trimmers were set to button only in IL-2 a lot of players were complaining long before "exploits" were a thing.

Edited September 22, 2016 by 6./ZG26_5tuka

[JtD]

To me, it's the same. I trim using keyboard. Whatever you do, it will be fine by me.

 

Cool thing to see you guys ask this question.

[Matt]

Trim should be on an axis, but not on an axis already controlling the elevator.

 

Even if it would be impossible to bind both on the same axis in the ingame menu, there's nothing to prevent people from using third party programs to bind both to the same axis (and people who are using this as an "exploit" would do that anyway, so changing how this works ingame would be waste of time).

 

I think all trim settings should be bindable to axis and buttons. Including trim settings that were operated by buttons like those on the Fw 190 (on the Stuka we can control the radiator with an axis, even though it was also operated by buttons and nobody cares about that).

 

However, while the adjustable stabilizer is being operated, the maximum possible input on the pitch axis should be reduced by 50%, simulating that the pilot can only use one hand on his stick while he has to operate the trim wheel/button. This would make the exploit basically useless.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Matt

[SvAF/F16_Goblin]

I vote for the possibility to map to axis (Saitek trim wheel as example) but lock ingame options so axis bound to pitch, roll and yaw cannot be bound to anything else.

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Trims on axies but include code that prevent binding it together with elevator - easy task. You can think out how to prevent third party software for doing the same but it's a marginal and waste of time??

[Beazil]

Trim should be on an axis, but not on an axis already controlling the elevator.

 

As long as the two axes are separate there's no aerodynamic advantage to be gained.

 

It's simply more convenient and part of the reason why we buy expensive HOTAS setups.

This.

[Sokol1]

Only in buttons/keys, trim in axis will be used as cheater.

 

Even inf removed the ability to use one axis for more than one function, in planes that have trim on wheels, these wheels can't be turned all their course in 1/2 second like people do with joy controls. If are chance for exploit this will be used.

 

And most controllers (joy/throttle) that have secondary axis (rotaries, sliders) suitable for trim,  use low resolution (8 bits - 256 steps) for this axis, what don't allow precise trim at all.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Sokol1

[J2_Trupobaw]

Make trims and stabilisers operated by wheel IRL bindable to mouse wheel (for some reason they can't be, or only I can't get them to work?). Won't be as difficult as turning the real wheel, but will involve manual turning and jerky behaviour.

Planes with trims/stabilisers controlled by buttons, like FW 190, should be controllable by buttons.

Edited September 22, 2016 by Trupobaw

[Sokol1]

Trim should be on an axis, but not on an axis already controlling the elevator.

 

Is the way that is in CloD and DCSW, a axis (eg. Y) assigned for a given function, eg. elevator, can't be assign for other, eg. elevator trim.

 

In true can, if you use a button/key as modifier for this axis, and although this modifier has a inconvenient - the second axis position freeze in the point what button is released, for "bat turn" this freeze result convenient. 

 

Perhaps a compromise for use axis and minimize exploit's in games controls (as externally TARGET's can do what the cheaters want), is remove the reset trim - what RL planes don't have, forcing a more careful handling of rotaries/sliders.

 

Anyway will be more easy remove the trim on axis ability from Bf109 than add to all planes. 

Edited September 22, 2016 by Sokol1

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

What about to make only possibility to bind one device and only one input (we have three now) to the trim?

[Sokol1]

Sees the more practical option until now, but probable require separate axis assignments from other controls  - like is in DCSW and CLoD - what will make lazy players complain that assign controls became "more complicated"...

[VBF-12_Stick-95]

I have a HOTAS but no trim wheels available.  Have no problem allowing link to axis.  Main thing is keeping actual transition speeds.

[LLv34_Flanker]

S!

 

 If a plane had a rotary trim then it should be on an axis. If not, then on buttons. In my opinion waste of time for devs trying to change this as the 3rd party programs can and will circumvent the implementations anyway. If the Bf109 trim is the biggest issue here then why not look into some "red" planes having smooth and easy controls on things they did not possess IRL. And those things really affected the pilot workload during flight and fight.

 

 I do not map trim and X-axis together. I rather use the same trick real Bf109 pilots did, at least Kyösti Karhila. He said he moved the trim wheel 1/4 rotation back so he had to slightly push the stick to keep level. When he needed to turn it was faster to enter a turn than without this "trick".

[Gnus]

Way to make unavailable change adjustment stabilizers and trimms when pilot is overloaded ( how much g? ) is better than the way to disallow using asix for it.

Speed of the stabilizers does not depend on the speed of the axis.

I voted for allowing asix for it, cause everyone who want can avoid that ban around the ban by using third-party methods. For example, I'm left hand, and use mousewheel for throttle. In CloD, I can not use mousewhell asix for throttle, and I'm using X mouse button control program. When ban for asix is turn on in BoS, I'll use the same program to give me ability set on mouse wheel asix, what I need. Dixi.

Edited September 23, 2016 by Gnus

[Extreme_One]

Looks like the Russian players are overwhelmingly opposed to reinstating trim on an axis.

[=Xone_96=Allen_and_Heath]

Just add overload during high G!

Both blue and red are flying like a Superman's - red's are crying that blua have possibility to map pitch and trip/stab in one axe and this gives advantage, while blue are crying that red plans can performe aerobatic maneuvers that are not possible for a human.....

 

Once you reach 4G and over - automaticly reducing of the axes sensitivity, till completely blocked.......

[MasterBaiter]

I vote for the possibility to map to axis (Saitek trim wheel as example) but lock ingame options so axis bound to pitch, roll and yaw cannot be bound to anything else.

This

[VBF-12_Snake9]

My signature has been like that for almost two years.    

 

 

 

those that believe restricting trimmers of all kinds to buttons is a solution for abuse are wrong. You can't limit people using external software like Joy2Key or advanced joystick drivers to let axis functions mimic button inputs and get the same advantage as before. It really punishes poeple who use trim in a not abusive more than real "exploiters".

 

 

 

part of the reason why we buy expensive HOTAS setups.

 

 

For two years I have been saying this.  

[Sokol1]

"Trim on slider", "trim on elevator axis", "reset trim"  = "exploit". 

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/24982-la-5-advice-needed/?do=findComment&comment=390911

 

On similar situation a RL pilot will have both hands occupied with ... pull the stick. 

 

Interesting topic: http://forum.il2sturmovik.ru/topic/3064-simulyator-vozdushnogo-boya-antropomorfnoe-upra/

Edited September 27, 2016 by Sokol1

[Extreme_One]

There are far, far more votes being cast on the Russian forum and they're overwhelmingly in favour of "Need to disallow the mapping of the adjustable stabilizer to the axis (only buttons might be used)"

 

I'd like to see the poll put on the Launcher as a direct link and then perhaps there would be more engagement.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Extreme_One

[VBF-12_Snake9]

That's no surprise.      . . . I just deleted the rest of my post.  It was mean and a generalization, but Oh so true.    

 

 

 

Jason is trying to fix their choices from three years ago.  Here's to Jason! 

[Sokol1]

It's simply more convenient and part of the reason why we buy expensive HOTAS setups.

 

Mmm, taking a look in that "expensive HOTAS":

 

CH HOTAS - No slider, rotaries for use as trim.

Warthog HOTAS - one slider.

Saitek's HOTAS - 2/3 slider, rotaries - but on 8 bits (256 steeps) axis, with short travel = bad for precise trim.

 

The only hardware really appropriated for trim is Saitek Trim wheel - 3 will cost ~150$.

Can be used with lesser degree of practicality Saitek/CH Quadrants ~50/120$.

 

Trim on axis is not for "new players".

Edited September 28, 2016 by Sokol1

[Extreme_One]

If they reinstated the ability to map trim to an axis it wouldn't be mandatory, you could still map it to a button.

 

So it wouldnt exclude new players, in much the same way that stick ownership or TrackIR doesn't.

Edited September 28, 2016 by Extreme_One

[TP_Silk]

I hope the results are double-checked to make sure that people haven't been voting on multiple language versions of the forums. If they have those votes should be immediately discounted entirely on every forum.

[JG300_Olrik]

 

Hi pilots!

 

...

 

I draw your attention to the fact that the actual rate of change the angle of adjustable stabilizer in the game currently does not depend on the speed of move the axis. It only depends on the aircraft structure. This means that no matter how fast the player move the axis, the stabilizer will be moved from the restricted speed, with the one with which it would have been moved in a real airplane. So, now the stabilizer has a delay for a quick change of axis position.

 

The same situation will be if we decide to allow mapped trimms to the axis. The real rate of changing the trimm position will be just as limited, according to the pilots capabilities and aircraft structure.

 

...

 

 

I voted for trim on axis, because it is near what i know in real flight (I dont use same axis for trim and pitch control).

Nevertheless I am aware of the unbalanced situation some fear, so I suggest this :

Added to the fact that the rate of change is limited, not depending of the move of the slider/lever, it could be modulated with the air speed. Then the rate of change would decrease with the speed of the aircraft, simulating the increasing aerodynamical effort and the longer time necessary to set trim at high speed.

[Matt]

I hope the results are double-checked to make sure that people haven't been voting on multiple language versions of the forums. If they have those votes should be immediately discounted entirely on every forum.

Given how the devs themselves double voted i doubt that's gonna happen. Nothing stops you from voting on the Russian forums with your account. It's better this way than having people creating fake-accounts just for a poll like this (which could still happen of course).

[Sokol1]

Added to the fact that the rate of change is limited, not depending of the move of the slider/lever, it could be modulated with the air speed. 

 

And the "trim reset" - if maintained, since is "unrealistic" - should take the same amount of time/key press for move from center to max, and not a "ON/OFF" like is implemented.

[BMA_FlyingShark]

And given the fact there are "trim reset" for ailerons, rudder and elevator, it should also reset the stabilizer.

 

[JG5_Schuck]

Well i use a trim wheel, were trim (or stabilizers) was on a wheel in real life, and buttons (190) where they used buttons.

Call me sad, but i want it to be as realistic as possible.

There are also some planes that prop pitch is on a wheel, mainly VVS, but it wont let you assign that to a wheel, and as i don't fly Red very often, i'm not to bothered. ( but for the VVS purists out there....!)

 

As for people mapping trim (stabilizer) to elevator movement, would having the default position fully in one direction stop this?

I know you'd have to set the trim position every time before you took off, but pilots check this anyway in pre-flight checks.

And trim reset, do we need it? 

[BMA_FlyingShark]

 

 

And trim reset, do we need it? 

Not really but it makes life easier, a keyboard is not a cockpit.

 

  

[novicebutdeadly]

I usually only fly the BF109 or is it Me109 

 

I want historical accuracy, and so I don't want a continuous movement of the flap wheel or elevator stab trim wheel, unless someone can provide any evidence of pilots using 2 hands to ensure a continuous movement...

 

 

Which leads to how to implement in a workable fun way (unlike the Wildcat from il2 1946, I swear I got rsi from tapping the keys to get the gears to go up),to me it should be bindable to anything (I might need to look up the cessna flap wheel for myself) BUT moving it to a certain position would indicate what percentage flaps/trim you want BUT NOT give any speed advantage to the movement.

 

For a joystick/keyboard you can leave you finger on the button and the wheel will continue to cycle through (non-continuous to allow for the hand to move from back to the front or vise versa depending on what you are doing), and for a slider you can move it to the desired position and the in game wheel will eventually catch up.

 

To me it would be realistic esp for people with Cessna trim wheels who could learn to turn the wheels at  realistic rate.

 

just my 2 cents

[TP_Silk]

Given how the devs themselves double voted i doubt that's gonna happen. Nothing stops you from voting on the Russian forums with your account. It's better this way than having people creating fake-accounts just for a poll like this (which could still happen of course).

 

That pretty much sucks. I would have hoped that the devs in particular would be more ethical than to double vote. As I see it there is no point at all in asking a question and then allowing voting more than once as that invalidates the results. I'm certainly not going to reduce myself to the level of those that wish to skew the results by voting on more than one forum.

[F/JG300_Gruber]

Trim should be on an axis, but not on an axis already controlling the elevator.

 

As long as the two axes are separate there's no aerodynamic advantage to be gained.

 

It's simply more convenient and part of the reason why we buy expensive HOTAS setups.

 

This