The adjustable stabilizer and trimms control (buttons / axis)

[Jade_Monkey]

As many have pointed out, third party software can already be used for this exploit.

 

I dont think punishing everyone by limiting to buttons is a good solution.

 

Maybe make them incompatible inputs at the same time? Idk

[F/JG300_Gruber]

At least slowing down the rate of spinning of the trim wheel would be a good start.

For the 109, half or even 1/3 of what it is now should be both more realistic and good enough to render the "exploit" almost useless.

 

It's winding really too fast for now.

 

 

I'm not for making them unusable at the same time, because trimming while releasing the pressure on the stick is actually how you do it in real life.

Edited October 1, 2016 by F/JG300_Gruber

[novicebutdeadly]

At least slowing down the rate of spinning of the trim wheel would be a good start.

For the 109, half or even 1/3 of what it is now should be both more realistic and good enough to render the "exploit" almost useless.

 

It's winding really too fast for now.

 

 

I'm not for making them unusable at the same time, because trimming while releasing the pressure on the stick is actually how you do it in real life.

100% agree it should be at  realistic rates (and in real if affected by speed it should be affected in game) and to not be continuous.

 

In regards to bindable to joystick,

 

in real life you could feel the loads and could adjust the stab to what is wanted, but in game you lack the Feel, so combining the 2 would make sense (provided that wheel turn speed and it not being continuous was observed), 

 

although did 109 pilots after configuring the plane for landing (flaps + stab adjustment) continue to use the stab combined with the elevator (for the flare)???

 

But on the flip side it does give 109 pilots (and any other aircraft that you could do this for) the advantage of giving the "pilot" 3 hands in some circumstances.

 

In a knife fight combat (close quarters constant throttle and pitch changes) the pilot can use 1 hand to do quick changes in throttle, and 1 hand to control both the elevators and the stab,

 

 

Because of that I do not think that it should be bindable to the joystick.

 

 

 

Edited October 3, 2016 by novicebutdeadly

[SharpeXB]

It's fair that if stabilizers can be assigned to an axis, so should trimmers. So my vote is to add trimmers on an axis.

As for the exploit, it's good that the rate of stabilizer change is realistically limited in the game. Players can't instantly change the stabilizer up and down. So I don't see the harm in axis control. For dual mapping "cheat", with HOTAS buttons assigned to the stabilizer I can control both at the same time regardless. A real pilot could do the same. So I don't see the difference between that and mapping the stabilizer to the joystick. Also JoyToKey could simply be used to make the joystick axis a keypress. If it's possible in the game menu system to suppress two axis being assigned to the same control that might keep exploiting down to a minimum or make it more difficult.

 

One thing that's not realistic in either method is the continuous turning of the stabilizer wheel in the 109. In reality a pilot could only move this about 1/4 turn each time. That would require reverting back to keypress control only though. Some trim wheels in these planes do look as if they could be operated continually since they are equipped with handgrips or those controlled electrically.

Edited October 8, 2016 by SharpeXB

[III/JG52_Otto_-I-]

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.

 

​I think, that the problem is in the modeling of G´s force effect, because the elevator trim control have a big effect in the pitch axis for all aircraft IRL.

 A few degrees of movement in the elevator trim control, cause a severe blockout effect in the pilots if they are in a dive at high speed, and this is not modelled properly in Il2-BoS, due to developers prefer retard the response instead of modeling the right G effect in the airplane and in the pilot. 

IRL a quick movement of the elevator trim control, when diving a 500 km/h or more speed, cause a important damage in the aircraft structure, specialy in the soviet aircrafts with wood fuselage. 

 

Obviously, aircraft with trim in a wheel should be set in an axis, and aircraft that in real live have the trim in buttons, should be set in buttons in the simulator.

 

But, i think that for all cases, the direct response of the trim wheel (without retard ) and the G effect of the elevator trim changes, should be improved. 

Edited October 13, 2016 by III/JG52_Otto_-I-

[Sokol1]

I think the key is flexibility, allow trim on keys, on buttons, on axis for all aircraft, limited to their real counterpart trims availability, e.g. if only in Stabilizer.

 

Player use like they want or they "expensive HOTAS" allow, in buttons, in HAT, in rotaries, in sliders...

A proper trim solution is use three Saitek trim wheel, a multi-turn trim device, allowing fine trim adjust, and as bonus make difficult "instant trim changes" exploit.

 

 

This will cost around 150$ (if remain in production under Logitech)... so if one want use this device for Fw 190 is their option.

 

For example, most of the ones who buy DCS Mig-21 don't bother if their (RL) flap is operated be 3 press and lock buttons - what is not available in none of these "expensive HOTAS".

They just want that this flap can be mapped in the 3 position latched flap switch of their "expensive A-10 Warthog Hotas", what is possible using their keymapper software or editing LUA files.

 

What should be removed is the "reset" trim, since this cause a instant trim change, for example from full trim do zero, or added in the reset a delay equals the time to manually move the trim from center to one extremity, since "reset trim" is used as exploit too.

Edited October 15, 2016 by Sokol1

[TG-55Panthercules]

I'm not sure how to interpret some of the vote options, so I was torn between the second and third options, but I picked the third one because I think both methods should be available.  

 

Given the apparently easy availability of 3rd party software/workarounds that seem likely to be able to defeat any limitations they might try to put on the ability to map things only to keys or only to sliders/rotaries/etc., I think the best thing for the devs to do would be to allow players to assign all these things to any sort of controller input/command that they want to, and focus their "anti-exploit" efforts on programming appropriate limitations into how the control surfaces actually respond to whatever inputs they get (e.g., things like making sure the surfaces move at a historically/mechanically appropriate speed between any two positions regardless of how quickly the player's control device inputs are made, influenced by G-force or other such factors if relevant).

 

That way, players could configure the game the way that best suits whatever flight controller hardware they happen to have in a way that makes the most sense and most fun game play for them, while still doing a reasonable job at preventing differences in player controller setups from having radical impacts on the way the control surfaces actually work in the game.

 

I think it's a fool's errand to try to anticipate and block all chances that a player can figure out how to buy fancier flight controller gear or configure their flight controllers to give themselves the benefit of a virtual "3rd hand" by being able to use one of their hands to do things on one controller device that would have been on separate physical controls or too far apart in the real cockpit to be able to do at the same time.  And I'd hate to see the vast majority of SP players penalized regarding their flight controller setup flexibility in a vain attempt to address some possibility of abuse by some MP players.

Edited October 15, 2016 by TG-55Panthercules

[Dakpilot]

I voted to only allow for buttons

 

However this is only because this is the only option that stops also binding trim to stick axis

 

If there was a way to have situation of all historical trim wheels on axis or rotary without possibility of 'bind to stick' exploit then that would be my vote

 

and I would probably get a cessna trim wheel 

 

Cheers Dakpilot

[19//Moach]

the best way to fix the "trimmer stick super-pitch kiddie trick" whilst maintaining the (much needed) ability to have an axis bound to the control would be to simulate the actual operation time on the control - as many have already proposed

 

on the 109, or any other plane where a single continuous motion is impossible, the input axis would set a "target", and the difference between that and the control position would then be gradually worked out by the "pilot" - eventually stopping once the target is reached

 

even better if it did stop in intervals to simulate moving the grip on the wheel, as suggested -- and better yet if this process were interrupted upon any other controls (besides the stick) being moved, then resuming after a small delay.  certainly, any other more immediate operation would take priority over this, ensuring that nobody gets "stuck trimming" on a critical moment

 

 

this should be all announced over technochat, so that it is clear to the player what's going on. that way "aborting" a long motion can be easily accomplished by repositioning the input to match the current position of the simulated control...

 

 

...or, a new key binding could be provided to start/stop this type of operation, so that one may quickly pause it upon a critical situation - this facility could also be provided as an "abort" button, which stops any ongoing step-grip process until a new input is set...

 

...or instead, such a commanded interruption of step-grip movements could also be triggered by operating anything else on the cockpit - and the operation would resume upon a new input being given (I reckon this is the most straightforward option of the lot)

 

 

 

worth noting:  this also applies to other things, besides pitch trim -- the cowl shutters on the la5, for instance, as well as the water radiator on the il2 (to name a few) should work in that same way

 

 

also worth noting - the 109 flaps wheel is designed to allow it being operated together with the stabilizer, this should be considered so that the step-grip motion isn't interrupted by that and any such combinations

 

 

 

 

nevertheless, multiple axis bindings must be preserved, as many of us are used to having a left/right throttle setup double as throttle/rpm on single engine types -- this would not be required if type-specific bindings and/or saving key mappings were possible

Edited January 25, 2017 by 19.GIAP//Moach

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

What Method do the 109 tails use to adjust the Stab Trim
Is it cables or Jackscrews on motors?

[Asgar]

when will I-16 no longer be able to extent gear, flaps and maneuver at the same time?

[Sokol1]

the best way to fix the "trimmer stick super-pitch kiddie trick" whilst maintaining the (much needed) ability to have an axis bound to the control 

 

 

Just allow only one binding per axis (actually is 3) problem solved. 

[curiousGamblerr]

Just allow only one binding per axis (actually is 3) problem solved. 

 

This is a not a good idea until we have the ability to set controls per aircraft. But I think you know that hence the smiley. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Again...

"

What Method do the 109 tails use to adjust the Stab Trim
Is it cables or Jackscrews on motors?
"

This will greatly effect the game and speed of trimming.
 

[curiousGamblerr]

Looks like cables connecting to a spindle in the tail in this diagram from a previous thread on the topic: https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/22007-reduce-rate-change-trim-bf109/?p=351867

 

Also googling "bf 109 elevator trim" gets you a few similar diagrams (googling adjustable stabilizer gets me nothing but game links)

 

As shown in that thread, it certainly seems what we have in game is too fast, regardless of control mechanism. 

Edited January 26, 2017 by 19.GIAP//curiousGamblerr

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

yeah i was looking and even a jackscrew is not fast..

But the 109 range is very small 10* up and down i think so would not take to long.

as for googling (yeah lots of info can be found under Stabilizer Trim

Re:
Jackscrew design -
Stab Trim -
 

[Sokol1]

This is a not a good idea until we have the ability to set controls per aircraft. But I think you know that hence the smiley. 

 

Why is need ability to set Y axis (or X, Z, etc) already set for pitch control for other function (like Bo'X allow), unless for cheater?

 

Just do like majority of games around, if Y axis is already assigned for pitch, if you try assign for "stabilizer adjust" or whatever is warned: "Axis already use for that function, overwrite?".

 

This issue don't need complicated solutions, just a simple and logic one: one function per axis.

 

Set controls per aircraft is other thing, has not do to with ability to set one axis for more than one function.

Edited January 26, 2017 by Sokol1

[Asgar]

maybe because people also use axis for radiators or mixture and we have different radiator systems so you have to bind multiple things to the same axis some times, nothing to do with cheating. just common sense

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

maybe because people also use axis for radiators or mixture and we have different radiator systems so you have to bind multiple things to the same axis some times, nothing to do with cheating. just common sense

Yes, but exclude pitch axie.

[curiousGamblerr]

maybe because people also use axis for radiators or mixture and we have different radiator systems so you have to bind multiple things to the same axis some times, nothing to do with cheating. just common sense

 

This exactly. My 109 stabilizer axis is outlet cowling in the Ju 88 and La-5 for example.

 

Yes, but exclude pitch axie.

 

Sure, this would be fine. It just wasn't clear to me that's all you meant.

[ACG_Invictus]

First, glad to see devs paying attention to this issue....

 

 

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.

 

 

Seems like a pretty simple solution to me. I don't use axis as trim / stabilizer adjustment, but some do for legitimate reasons so I see the need to keep it.  Those in favor of allowing axis to control the stabilizer should not have a problem with this approach (unless they are currently using a single axis to control both to gain an advantage, of course).

 

I'd vote for this, but unfortunately it's not an option in the poll. 

Why is need ability to set Y axis (or X, Z, etc) already set for pitch control for other function (like Bo'X allow), unless for cheater?

 

Just do like majority of games around, if Y axis is already assigned for pitch, if you try assign for "stabilizer adjust" or whatever is warned: "Axis already use for that function, overwrite?".

 

This issue don't need complicated solutions, just a simple and logic one: one function per axis.

 

Set controls per aircraft is other thing, has not do to with ability to set one axis for more than one function.

 

Totally agree!

[Sokol1]

maybe because people also use axis for radiators or mixture and we have different radiator systems so you have to bind multiple things to the same axis some times, nothing to do with cheating. just common sense

 

For this need the solution is what several people already ask - even for other reasons: allow save the commands assignments per plane, so Z axis can be the "Stabilizer Adjust" for Bf 109, Oil Radiator for He 111, Mixture for whatever...but can't be used as cheater like multiple assignment per axis allow.

[curiousGamblerr]

For this need the solution is what several people already ask - even for other reasons: allow save the commands assignments per plane, so Z axis can be the "Stabilizer Adjust" for Bf 109, Oil Radiator for He 111, Mixture for whatever...but can't be used as cheater like multiple assignment per axis allow.

 

A few things...

 

1. Let's stop using the word "cheater" here. A cheater is someone that works outside the boundaries of the game. In this case, it's merely an ahistorical and unrealistic usage of the game mechanics. That's not cheating, it's just being kinda lame (in our opinions).

 

2. Putting both pitch and stabilizer on one axis gives less granular control of the aircraft. Any really good player is going to want to keep them separate. Not to mention that the stabilizer, while probably too quick, does not adjust instantaneously like pitch. The combination of less control and the stabilizer lagging behind means this double binding trick is likely only going to be used by mediocre players.

 

3. In light of 2, it's really not that big of a deal and likely barely affects anyone. We don't even know how many people are doing this.

 

4. Without the ability to bind multiple controls per axis, we would all need a ton of axes in order to account for all the different aircraft. This would break the setups of many more people and have far more of a negative impact than the impact of a few people using the pitch+stabilizer trick.

 

In conclusion, the ability to bind more than one control per axis is necessary until we have the ability to save plane-specific controls. We should not be discussing removing this ability unless we're very specific that we mean double binding pitch axis only. Fortunately, Jason and the devs surely understand all of these considerations, so we'll be fine.

 

The only thing really worth discussing here is the speed at which the stabilizer moves, and to discuss it seriously, we need to find evidence of the speed and present it to the devs. I don't have any such evidence, and since it was a hand operated wheel it's tough because there is probably not a real "maximum speed" but rather the speed is limited by a pilot's practical ability to turn the wheel. I'm not sure what sort of evidence would be necessary to get this changed, and it's definitely not a priority for the devs and understandably so.

 

This turned into a bit of a rant but that's the gist of the whole thing IMO.

Edited January 26, 2017 by 19.GIAP//curiousGamblerr

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

-snip-

 

I'm not sure what sort of evidence would be necessary to get this changed, and it's definitely not a priority for the devs and understandably so.

 

-snip-

 

Sitting in one of the many 109's that exist in museums and averaging the fastest time to deploy the stabilizer would be an alright place to start.

 

Definitely not a priority, though.

 

Also, what is the issue with binding pitch trim/vert stab to the same key/axis? Do any of these aircraft have both?

[curiousGamblerr]

Sitting in one of the many 109's that exist in museums and averaging the fastest time to deploy the stabilizer would be an alright place to start.

 

Definitely not a priority, though.

 

Also, what is the issue with binding pitch trim/vert stab to the same key/axis? Do any of these aircraft have both?

 

That experiment is all I could think of as well...

 

And it's not pitch trim, no aircraft in game has both. It's the pitch axis itself, i.e. the elevators. People dislike that you can bind them both to the same axis, so when you pull up on the stick both the elevators and the stabilizer go in the same direction, allowing for unrealistically quick and tight turns.

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

That experiment is all I could think of as well...

 

And it's not pitch trim, no aircraft in game has both. It's the pitch axis itself, i.e. the elevators. People dislike that you can bind them both to the same axis, so when you pull up on the stick both the elevators and the stabilizer go in the same direction, allowing for unrealistically quick and tight turns.

But the problem is then..

 

Stab trim DOES NOT work like that in real life.

 

so the issue is not that the axis need to be blocked but the modeling of Stab trim needs to be fixed. ??

 

 

 

[19//Moach]

it's not that complicated rly,

 

the exploit problem isn't that one can assign the stab axis to the stick - but that the stabilizer responds fast enough that it provides an unrealistic advantage

 

 

the cure:   slow it down

 

the stabilizer on the 109 was designed to operate together with the flaps, so it should be fair enough that they go from zero to 100% in that same amount of time

 

 

so when the input axis is moved, the stabilizer will gradually work it's way to match -- as I've suggested before, this could be interrupted by other controls, such as throttle changes, and then remain paused until a new stabilizer input is given.

even if it keeps on going, (as if by a third hand) - it'd be kinda weird but it would nevertheless solve the bulk of the problems being discussed here

 

 

that way, you can have the cake and eat it too - nobody loses the benefits of combined axis mappings and the trim exploit is no longer possible

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

Also if you did this in a real plane with Stab Trim..

you would not fly long and die very fast as you alter the wings AoA to quickly and stall

This would never work IRL

[senseispcc]

All is historical and nice for the moment "let it be"!

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

pretty sure no pilots ever flew like that 1 hand on stick 1 hand on stab trim pulling 10G turns inside a i16

[SCG_Space_Ghost]

pretty sure no pilots ever flew like that 1 hand on stick 1 hand on stab trim pulling 10G turns inside a i16

 

You must've missed (are missing) the lovely Yak flaps.

[Lusekofte]

All other simulators allow axis trim wheel and have a options for the usage of buttons. What historical point get ruined by having axis trim?

If we could have a interface that allowed for saving setup for every plane like COD it would even be better. 

[=TBAS=Sshadow14]

im sorry which game are you comparing it to?

WT where trims are half done and instead of moving tabs in oppisite direction they just move the entire control surface?
WT where trims are messed with for balance and to nerf planes?

[BOO]

im sorry which game are you comparing it to?

 

WT where trims are half done and instead of moving tabs in oppisite direction they just move the entire control surface?

WT where trims are messed with for balance and to nerf planes?

 

If your referring to LusKoft's post hes talking about Cliff of Dover.

 

109 and 190 Stabs move the entire assembly not a tab.  

 

Not sure about your second point but messing with trim to balance the aircraft is the point of trim isnt it? 

[Lusekofte]

Old IL 2 got trims set to axis, and still offer trim for buttons, if it can be done for vertical stabilators it can be done for  trim. If "Historical" should be the excuse for not having axis trim, then why do we mouse click the bombaimer interface, why do we punch a button on keyboard for trim, it simply do not make any sense 

[19//Moach]

I agree that we do need an axis for the trim controls - and that ideally, they should be unified as one same binding...

 

but - it's historically important and very crucial that the 109 stabilizer cannot move at 1:1 speed relative to the input axis - this allows for the infamous "stabiliaxis exploit" which confers unhistorical super-maneuverability to those shameless enough to use it

 

and this is not exclusively achieved by combining it to the elevator control, just having it set to an axis will enable instant reaction to any given position, effectively circumventing a very relevant limitation of the real 109, which was reported by many veterans who flew it as having been a thing one had to consider in a dogfight... i.e. not a trivial detail that should be overlooked

 

 

again, the solution is very simple:  make the stabilizer/trimmer move at a fixed realistic speed towards the desired position set by the player - and from then on, there should be no issues with mapping any axis to trim/stab control - no exploits possible, and no mapping options lost - win win

 

 

another thing to consider:   the FW190 and the Pe2 have electrical switches for such tabs - so for those it'd make sense to not allow an axis being used -- just as it currently is, with the 190 having a separate control - the Pe2 would need similar attention, ideally unifying those two in a more straightforward pair of "electrical trimmer up/down" bindings

Edited March 9, 2017 by 19//Moach

[SAG]

Just dont allow the trimmers to be set to the same axis as the pitch or roll axis

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Any news when and what we should expect?

[19//Moach]

Just dont allow the trimmers to be set to the same axis as the pitch or roll axis

 

 

I do not think this will eliminate the exploit -- it remains possible to use any other axis, such as a hotas rotary which can be operated together with the stick and obtain the same "magic results" - and that'd offer even more precision than using the stick combination axis - in the long run, it'd make the exploit even more effective

 

my proposal to move trimmers at a fixed rate of change towards the axis selected position was meant to address the issue at it's fundamental cause, rather than the consequential symptom

 

the exploit becomes worthless if the axis does not make the stabilizer move immediately to the desired position - it can still be attempted, but to no further avail, as it will be impossible to operate it in such a way that overrides the historical limitations of the airframe, and thus the unrealistic (and therefore, unfair) advantage can no longer be obtained

 

 

and due to that - the axis trimmer question becomes moot, being then only a matter of accessibility, with no benefit or detriment in maneuverability and combat capabilities between those who use it and those who don't

Edited March 11, 2017 by 19//Moach

[Sokol1]

> Just don't allow the trimmers to be set to the same axis as the pitch or roll axis

 

>> I do not think this will eliminate the exploit -- it remains possible to use any other axis,

 

Besides don't allow use one axis for more that one command, limit one assignment for axis command - actually is three. No practical reason to be more than one unless for "exploit".

 

E.g. in CLoD you can assign N keys or joy buttons for keys commands - can use the same key for more than one command, but only in different category.

 

But can use only one axis for e.g. aileron or elevator trim, and can use this axis only one time, can use a given axis for a second function, but need assign a key or joy button as modifier for this axis, so no exploit. 

 

No option for "smart" users.   

 

About trim adjust speed, yes need be closed as possible to real plane. But I remember a dev' post saying that early Bf 109 trim speed was considered "too slow"   be users and will be adjusted.

 

Other "gamey" option is "trim reset", this don't exist in real WWII planes at least.   

Edited March 11, 2017 by Sokol1