Jump to content

Force feedback center stick behavior vs spring centered stick with stabilizer


Recommended Posts

-edit: I'm feeling confused on this subject lately, and will pass it on to those with some degree of expertise. 

 

There's a thread on this in general discussion - https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28194-109-trim-different-ffb/

 

But I figured this was a more appropriate place to list it. 

 

I had mostly gotten used to just flying my German fighters this way without feeling much of a detriment. 

 

Here's what I can say - in at least the BF-109 F4  I tested two different sticks. 

 

Results -  TM Warthog flying at around or slightly over 500km/h = -30-40% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered.

 

                MSFFB2 - flying at the same speeds requires -75-80% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered. 

 

I'd like to clarify that both physical sticks are in center position. 

 

I could make the Warthog require the same amount of stabilizer as the msffb2 ONLY when I pulled the stick slightly aft.  

 

I don't believe this has anything to do with the stabilizer itself, having checked the stabilizer index and compared them to technochat percentages. 

 

I'm led to believe that for some reason, the center of the MSFFB2 is defaulted to an area slightly aft of center, changing the position of the elevators causing a need for more nose down stabilizer than if you were flying with any regular center spring stick.

 

Thinking of the more advanced control options of RoF,  I'm wondering if the devs have accidentally defaulted the center of FFB sticks to be too far back in German fighters that use stabilizer (I.E. stick doesn't move when you adjust it, compared to adjustable trim we have in bombers or most VVS planes where the stick moves with your trim adjustments)

 

I have no way of knowing why or how there is such a difference when switching between the two sticks.. but I'm hoping that this is an easy fix for the devs when I'm reminded of the options for responses and curves in RoF not available to us in IL-2 BoX.  

 

I'm not 100% sure if this is in reality due to a change in stick/elevator position when switching from FFB to non FFB,  or if in some way the trim tabs are effected by the switch in sticks.  But, my best guess is that FFB stick users have been defaulted to a different position at center than other sticks. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's what I can say - in at least the BF-109 F4  I tested two different sticks. 

 

Results -  TM Warthog flying at around or slightly over 500km/h = -30-40% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered.

 

                MSFFB2 - flying at the same speeds requires -75-80% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered. 

 

I'd like to clarify that both physical sticks are in center position.

​As I said in the other thread, the the "techno chat" indication "stabilizer 0%" or -30-40%, ..is not valid reference, becase it is not match with the neutral trim position, in the THS (Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer), in zero degrees position.

 

The indication of the percentage in the "techno chat" for the elevator trim control is wrong, for the following reasons.

The Bf-109 F series have 9 degrees of travel in the THS (Trimmable Horizontal Stabilizer) in the THS index (placed LH side of the cockpit and forward of the trim wheel)

is from -6 degrees (nose up) to +3 degrees (nose down).

The Bf-109 G series have 8 degrees , from -6 to +2 degress

But both airplanes have the NEUTRAL trim in ZERO position.

 

trim_w11.jpg

 

However in the Il2-BoS (ver. 2.009d)  for the Bf-109 F the

"techno chat" show stabilizer  0% when the "index" is in -1.5 degrees, NOT in neutral position.

and for the Bf-109 G  "techno chat" show stabilizer  0% when the "index" is in -2 degrees, NOT in neutral position.

For the same reason, in the Bf-109 F the "techno chat" show stabilizer -33% when the "index" is in ZERO degrees, NEUTRAL position. 

and  in the Bf-109 G the "techno chat" show stabilizer -50% when the "index" is in ZERO degrees, NEUTRAL position.

 

But all of these things are explained in the video interview to Volker Bau, that i´ve posted before, ...

.18056328_10213029428312676_6646333107813

 

17991763_10213029428352677_1602310579243

Edited by III/JG52_Otto_-I-
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm editing it because it was written with a bit of frustration on my part and it's not Otto's fault or IL-2's fault that I can be edgy.  and it's really just a misunderstanding and I don't wish to have enemies within the flight simming community,  I like to think of the fighters and bombers I shoot down as people with at least one common interest choosing to play for the other team. 

 

What the entire post boils down to is a response to Otto, regarding his claim.  Personally..the information above to me does not pertain to the issue. 

 

He has pictures of the G2 but in the 109 F-4 0% Stabilizer technochat = 1.5 degrees nose down (I could have it backwards but the number is right).   This fact doesn't change suddenly when switching between two different sticks. 

 

+75% technochat is roughly 2 degrees nose up (talking the F4 here).   

 

My point is that, switching the sticks out doesn't cause +75% to not be 2 degrees.   Therefore, no matter if you're measuring it by degrees or technochat percentages they both will show the same result that you need about twice as much of either number to achieve the same results in flight with FFB Enabled using an FFB joystick than you would either with FFB disabled or a spring centered stick. 

 

His argument, from what I've read seems to be that 0% should equal 0 degrees stabilizer and that's a point I'm not qualified to decide if he's correct on one way or another, and in no way the topic of either thread.  Personally I'm under the impression 0% technochat just equals the center point of full range of travel.  I could be totally wrong on that and I don't really care.  I'm not the caliber of player to go talking about flight models, their accuracy, and their implementation.    That's a completely different subject in my opinion.. and my tests have pretty much ruled out the stabilizer or the position there of as the cause of the issue. 

 

It does however, seem natural to think that a force feedback stick's behavior in german fighters with stabilizers rather than pilot adjusted trim tabs where it remains in central position, regardless of the stabilizer settings, is just that.  Central position.

 

The issue, as far as I can tell, is that Center position with an FFB capable stick and FFB enabled is DIFFERENT than that of just a spring centered stick with no ffb technology.  It is my opinion that something is causing center with FFB enabled is adjusting the position of the elevators.. and the devs may very well have a good excuse for this, but, to be honest, IF what Otto says is truth about stabilizer settings for cruise speeds then the center spring joystick actually appears to be more accurate, while flying with FFB appears to make the plane very tail heavy and cause much more nose down stabilizer to fly level or near it with hands off. 

 

I'm not here to debate the accuracy of the implementation of the stabilizer, the wheel, or the stabilizer index.  I'm here saying I've double checked after making sure people get at least the basic concept of speed vs lift and things that can affect the orientation of any given aircraft that can be flown, and even after asking people to test deadzones, and there does indeed seem to be a pretty big difference in the pitch characteristics of at least the bf-109 G2 and f4 when switching between and FFB stick and a spring centered stick. 

 

And again..my best guess is this is somehow effecting the Elevator.. and I'm not certain why FFB enabled would cause a shift in where "center" is on the stick's forward and aft travel. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude I don't think we need to have exact stabilizer references to know that something is messed up between sticks.   And the problem itself is NOT with the stabilizer.  All that needs to be known is that there is a major difference in the required amount of stabilizer IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN TWO DIFFERENT STICKS OTTO. 

 

Regardless of whether 0% is NEUTRAL OR NOT.... 0% is still 1.5 nose down stabilizer no matter what you are trying to say to me up there and the percentages and their relation to the degrees remain the same between the two.

 

With a FFB joystick or not, the BF-109G must be fly in Neutral trim,(straight and wings level) in 0 position of the THS, at CRUISE SPEED about 440km/h and 1.0ATA/2000rpm, hands off!! ..the kind of joystick is not the matter, for flying HANDS OFF.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Otto.. you are completely on a different topic than either of the two threads are posted about.   There is a difference between two types of joystick that has caused some people to ask questions. The thread is ABOUT that difference between two joysticks.. so yes..the type of joystick and the freaking effect it is having on the plane's pitch when both sticks are at center are indeed relevant.  That is the point of the person who posted it in the first place.  In fact, your bit about 0% technochat not being 0 degrees is the irrelevant post here.   I'm done with this argument.  You're missing the concept. I don't even believe you're reading entire paragraphs at this point you must be skimming through.   You are talking flight models and implementation.   I am not. Nor was the OP  or anyone else in the other thread.  We are talking about a bug with pc gaming peripherals. My earlier posts in the previous thread were just to make sure people complaining had the most basic and simple understanding of the effect of speed and lift before I began the task of testing everything myself.   If you aren't here to discuss the difference between an FFB joystick, and an NON ffb joystick when flying german fighters, then please leave it to those who are, start your own thread if you feel there is a problem with the implementation of the stabilizer int he bf-109. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this:

 

1) This is not a matter of a difference between sticks - it is matter between FFB-on and FFB-ff.     My Logitech G940 requires a different trim for the Bf 109 F-4 depending on whether the game is started with FFB on or off.

 

2) In my case I need tail heavy trim in order to maintain level flight at cruise speeds with FFB off (-3/4 to - 1 1/4 degrees), with FFB on approximately neutral trim (+ 1/4 to - 1/4 degrees).

 

3) So in this case the FFB-on is closer to what we expect from the documentation.  So FFB as such is not bugged, the question is why there appears to be a difference at all.

 

4) Visual inspection shows no difference in the setting of the stabilizer at mission start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this:

 

1) This is not a matter of a difference between sticks - it is matter between FFB-on and FFB-ff.     My Logitech G940 requires a different trim for the Bf 109 F-4 depending on whether the game is started with FFB on or off.

 

2) In my case I need tail heavy trim in order to maintain level flight at cruise speeds with FFB off (-3/4 to - 1 1/4 degrees), with FFB on approximately neutral trim (+ 1/4 to - 1/4 degrees).

 

3) So in this case the FFB-on is closer to what we expect from the documentation.  So FFB as such is not bugged, the question is why there appears to be a difference at all.

 

4) Visual inspection shows no difference in the setting of the stabilizer at mission start.

 

I am actually with you that this is more "FFB On vs FFB Off" However.. disabling FFB and presenting it as a stick with only centering forces is pretty much the same as switching out for a spring centered stick.   What you could be on to however, is that this is some how modeled into the force feedback effects themselves. 

 

Rather than checking your stabilizer positions.. could you check your stick and elevator positions to see if you notice any differences?  Screenshots could prove useful in eliminating if there's an effect on the elevators causing this to happen.  Could something be going on with the propwash and wind factor? Perhaps take a look at what you see with 1500-1800 rpm and full toebrakes? 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with the elevator is that I can only get the changed Alt-F2 camera angle to work correctly with an air start - for some reason with a parked start it gives a top down view.... something to do with the ground proximity I expect. Using free camera makes it next to impossible to make sure that you have an identical camera position in different missions.

 

With an air start I have found no way of screenshotting in-game joystickstick or elevators  since the idiotic "Game is paused, press P" message is plastered all over your screen: once you remove it they start to move naturally just from the air pressure, 

 

Anyway, as I said, in my opinion on my stick the behaviour of trim with FFB on is perfect, so my motivation to investigate this further has now slumped to zero.  Too busy trying to get my ME to work...

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this:

 

1) This is not a matter of a difference between sticks - it is matter between FFB-on and FFB-ff.     My Logitech G940 requires a different trim for the Bf 109 F-4 depending on whether the game is started with FFB on or off.

 

2) In my case I need tail heavy trim in order to maintain level flight at cruise speeds with FFB off (-3/4 to - 1 1/4 degrees), with FFB on approximately neutral trim (+ 1/4 to - 1/4 degrees).

 

3) So in this case the FFB-on is closer to what we expect from the documentation.  So FFB as such is not bugged, the question is why there appears to be a difference at all.

 

4) Visual inspection shows no difference in the setting of the stabilizer at mission start.

 

some here (G940)

 

in my case i use -60% / -70% on 109 F2/F4 for to level the plane, but in G2 i use constantly the stabilizer on -99% for the cruise speed

Link to post
Share on other sites

My take on this:

 

1) This is not a matter of a difference between sticks - it is matter between FFB-on and FFB-ff. My Logitech G940 requires a different trim for the Bf 109 F-4 depending on whether the game is started with FFB on or off.

 

2) In my case I need tail heavy trim in order to maintain level flight at cruise speeds with FFB off (-3/4 to - 1 1/4 degrees), with FFB on approximately neutral trim (+ 1/4 to - 1/4 degrees).

 

3) So in this case the FFB-on is closer to what we expect from the documentation. So FFB as such is not bugged, the question is why there appears to be a difference at all.

 

4) Visual inspection shows no difference in the setting of the stabilizer at mission start.

Did you checked my videos about this issue

?

With a FFB joystick or not, the BF-109G must be fly in Neutral trim,(straight and wings level) in 0 position of the THS, at CRUISE SPEED about 440km/h and 1.0ATA/2000rpm, hands off!! ..the kind of joystick is not the matter, for flying HANDS OFF.

 

Man you don't understand the problem, how many times ppl have to explain you again but then you came with same plane description and explain obvious thing....BTW you have right about real aircraft but we discusse FF issue. Edited by 307_Tomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a thread on this in general discussion - https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28194-109-trim-different-ffb/

 

But I figured this was a more appropriate place to list it.

 

I had mostly gotten used to just flying my German fighters this way without feeling much of a detriment.

 

Here's what I can say - in at least the BF-109 F4 I tested two different sticks.

 

Results - TM Warthog flying at around or slightly over 500km/h = -30-40% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered.

 

MSFFB2 - flying at the same speeds requires -75-80% nose down stabilizer to do anything but climb with stick centered.

 

I'd like to clarify that both physical sticks are in center position.

 

I could make the Warthog require the same amount of stabilizer as the msffb2 ONLY when I pulled the stick slightly aft.

 

I don't believe this has anything to do with the stabilizer itself, having checked the stabilizer index and compared them to technochat percentages.

 

I'm led to believe that for some reason, the center of the MSFFB2 is defaulted to an area slightly aft of center, changing the position of the elevators causing a need for more nose down stabilizer than if you were flying with any regular center spring stick.

 

Thinking of the more advanced control options of RoF, I'm wondering if the devs have accidentally defaulted the center of FFB sticks to be too far back in German fighters that use stabilizer (I.E. stick doesn't move when you adjust it, compared to adjustable trim we have in bombers or most VVS planes where the stick moves with your trim adjustments)

 

I have no way of knowing why or how there is such a difference when switching between the two sticks.. but I'm hoping that this is an easy fix for the devs when I'm reminded of the options for responses and curves in RoF not available to us in IL-2 BoX.

 

I'm not 100% sure if this is in reality due to a change in stick/elevator position when switching from FFB to non FFB, or if in some way the trim tabs are effected by the switch in sticks. But, my best guess is that FFB stick users have been defaulted to a different position at center than other sticks.

You poorly choose name of the thread because​ FFB stick in some case is and should be offset of center in FF stick... In some planes control column is travelling​ different distance depending if you pulling or pushing​ it. In other words in one direction is longer and other is short. This is impossible to do in normal joy because spring center but in FF Joy you can program new center point. Edited by 307_Tomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you checked my videos about this issue?

 

 

Yes - as far as I can see they show that there is a difference to trim with FFB on/off, but since I have no idea what the is historically correct trim setting for a Stuka in the condition in your test, I have no idea whether FFB on or FFB off appears to be producing more realistic results, which is also why I would not bother testing the Stuka myself.  

 

With my stick with the Bf 109s it is definitely more realistic with FFB on:  if some people have a different result it must be specific either to their stick brand or stick configuration. 

 

You could just run the F-4 test as per my earlier post and see which of on/off is more tail heavy at a given trim setting. In my test is was with FFB on. If you get a reverse result that proves that the difference is in stick or stick set-up, which I suspect is the case. Ie there is no "bug".

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes - as far as I can see they show that there is a difference to trim with FFB on/off, but since I have no idea what the is historically correct trim setting for a Stuka in the condition in your test, I have no idea whether FFB on or FFB off appears to be producing more realistic results, which is also why I would not bother testing the Stuka myself.

 

With my stick with the Bf 109s it is definitely more realistic with FFB on: if some people have a different result it must be specific either to their stick brand or stick configuration.

 

You could just run the F-4 test as per my earlier post and see which of on/off is more tail heavy at a given trim setting. In my test is was with FFB on. If you get a reverse result that proves that the difference is in stick or stick set-up, which I suspect is the case. Ie there is no "bug".

I was not in pursuing which is more closely to real life because I do not know nothing about real Stuka trimm at that condition. I just wanted to point out that there is huge difference In betweeneen two options and that I can't​ (in case of FF) set trimm up for steedy climb hands off because I'm already at the end of scale opposite to without FF where I'm berly at halfway. As Otto posted I can use this as real reference and do test 109 and see which one is more real alike. Edited by 307_Tomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites

You poorly choose name of the thread because​ FFB stick in some case is and should be offset of center in FF stick... In some planes control column is travelling​ different distance depending if you pulling or pushing​ it. In other words in one direction is longer and other is short. This is impossible to do in normal joy because spring center but in FF Joy you can program new center point.

 

I don't believe I did honestly, when I say "German fighters", I'm talking planes with a stabilizer rather than planes with adjustable trim.   In the BF-109, and FW-190,  the stick behaves as if it should be in center position the moment you put any airflow over the tail.  Adjusting the stabilizer doesn't cause the position of the stick to change. It stays centered.

 

If we're talking planes with adjustable trim, like say most VVS fighters and some of the german bombers, the entire stick moves with any adjustment of pitch trim.   Basically by adjusting the pitch trim you're adjusting the position of "center stick".

 

In that situation I can't compare the behavior of an FFB stick to that of a spring centered stick imo.. it's an entirely different experience where you can actually feel how much trim you've put into the plane just by noting the position of the stick.  In that regard my FFB experience feels entirely similar to other sims that emulate this function via FFB.

 

What I can note is that center stick with FFB in a 109 or 190 seems to be a different position than center stick without FFB.  And to clarify.. my guess is that even though both physical sticks may be centered, it seems as if the stick in the plane may be slightly off center when flying with a centered FFB stick. 

 

Now we could very well be off in ALL planes.. but the original thread was about the 109, and that behavior is easy for me to spot.  

 

I'm still thinking it has something to do with the simulated stick/elevator position.  But that again is just my best guess.  And also why I bring up Rise of Flight.. as if you've ever looked at the control options with RoF,  it was possible to change the position that "center stick" reflected with any stick.   Unreasonable did point out that this seems to be more somehow tied to the enabling or disabling of FFB within the game.. so again.. I don't know, but even aside from my own testing.. my wingman who doesn't use an FFB stick has confirmed that he uses about half of the nose down stabilizer I would for any given situation, and it is rare I actually have a reason to go nose up. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites
So FFB as such is not bugged, the question is why there appears to be a difference at all.

 

The sum of the reasoning for thread imo.  

 

And made by a guy with an ironic name because his summary would make me think he's more reasonable than me..or other people who keep explaining a concept to me that I don't see the relevance of. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe I did honestly, when I say "German fighters", I'm talking planes with a stabilizer rather than planes with adjustable trim. In the BF-109, and FW-190, the stick behaves as if it should be in center position the moment you put any airflow over the tail. Adjusting the stabilizer doesn't cause the position of the stick to change. It stays centered.

 

If we're talking planes with adjustable trim, like say most VVS fighters and some of the german bombers, the entire stick moves with any adjustment of pitch trim. Basically by adjusting the pitch trim you're adjusting the position of "center stick".

 

In that situation I can't compare the behavior of an FFB stick to that of a spring centered stick imo.. it's an entirely different experience where you can actually feel how much trim you've put into the plane just by noting the position of the stick. In that regard my FFB experience feels entirely similar to other sims that emulate this function via FFB.

 

What I can note is that center stick with FFB in a 109 or 190 seems to be a different position than center stick without FFB. And to clarify.. my guess is that even though both physical sticks may be centered, it seems as if the stick in the plane may be slightly off center when flying with a centered FFB stick.

 

Now we could very well be off in ALL planes.. but the original thread was about the 109, and that behavior is easy for me to spot.

 

I'm still thinking it has something to do with the simulated stick/elevator position. But that again is just my best guess. And also why I bring up Rise of Flight.. as if you've ever looked at the control options with RoF, it was possible to change the position that "center stick" reflected with any stick. Unreasonable did point out that this seems to be more somehow tied to the enabling or disabling of FFB within the game.. so again.. I don't know, but even aside from my own testing.. my wingman who doesn't use an FFB stick has confirmed that he uses about half of the nose down stabilizer I would for any given situation, and it is rare I actually have a reason to go nose up.

About title actually I was referring to stabilizer and fact that 109 elevator is shifted out of center in FF stick (which is correct), if you want simulate this in non FF joy you have to shift pitch curve down and then elevator on the ground is in correct position. But even so other airplanes like Ju87 with trimms shows also that there is big difference in trimm position at the same flight conditions.
Link to post
Share on other sites

some here (G940)

 

in my case i use -60% / -70% on 109 F2/F4 for to level the plane, but in G2 i use constantly the stabilizer on -99% for the cruise speed

@Pan; ..What is "Cruise speed" for you in the G2.? ..The cruise speed in the real G2 is about 440-450km/h (at 1.0ATA/2000RPM), and the real aircraft fly straight and level with elevator trim indicator in ZERO (neutral)

​.. Now in the BoS, i can fly the G2 trimmed at zero degrees (more or less) at 450km/h, with a not FFB joystick, hands off. 

 

Did you checked my videos about this issue?

Man you don't understand the problem, how many times ppl have to explain you again but then you came with same plane description and explain obvious thing....BTW you have right about real aircraft but we discusse FF issue.

 

Otto.. you are completely on a different topic than either of the two threads are posted about.   There is a difference between two types of joystick that has caused some people to ask questions. The thread is ABOUT that difference between two joysticks.. so yes..the type of joystick and the freaking effect it is having on the plane's pitch when both sticks are at center are indeed relevant.  That is the point of the person who posted it in the first place.  In fact, your bit about 0% technochat not being 0 degrees is the irrelevant post here.

@Tomcat and Headwarp I´m trying to explain that it is necessary to take the real aircraft trim indicator, as reference, in the comparison between ffb and not FFb, because "Techno chat" indication, is not valid for the Bf-109. 

Note that the "techno chat" indication match with neutral trim position in zero degrees, in the JU-87, unlike the Bf-109.

But it seem that nobody undertand this issue.

 

18121241_10213047357840903_7149177504464

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pan; ..What is "Cruise speed" for you in the G2.? ..The cruise speed in the real G2 is about 440-450km/h (at 1.0ATA/2000RPM), and the real aircraft fly straight and level with elevator trim indicator in ZERO (neutral)

​.. Now in the BoS, i can fly the G2 trimmed at zero degrees (more or less) at 450km/h, with a not FFB joystick, hands off. 

 

 

@Tomcat and Headwarp I´m trying to explain that it is necessary to take the real aircraft trim indicator, as reference, in the comparison between ffb and not FFb, because "Techno chat" indication, is not valid for the Bf-109. 

Note that the "techno chat" indication match with neutral trim position in zero degrees, in the JU-87, unlike the Bf-109.

But it seem that nobody undertand this issue.

 

18121241_10213047357840903_7149177504464

 

Otto man, if anything this picture shows me that 0% in regard to pitch travel or stabilizer travel is just the exact middle point of the full range. The Ju-87 has 15 degrees of travel in either direction so 0% = 0 degrees. Your own words have indicated the BF-109 has more degrees nose down from neutral than nose up from neutral. Without really looking much more into it, because this isn't the cause or effect, my guess is if 0% tchat represented "neutral" as you want to put it, the difference of (+)1-100% would have less value than the difference of (-)1-100% basically putting a response curve on the entire stabilizer wheel.    Technochat may not represent the same amount of degrees when you jump from plane to plane but this is because the numbers -100 and +100 represent completely different numbers between one aircraft to another.  

 

The tchat percentages remain consistent with the stabilizer index references no matter which stick within the BF-109 F4. And either measurement, degrees or tchat percentages will demonstrate the things I'm noticing. 

 

That being said I haven't been here since the beginning, and I'm not claiming to be some expert of all things sim.  I'm still noticing more things on this that are making me believe I'm not up to the task of explaining what the cause of this might be, and whether it's actually a problem. 

 

Interesting thought.. .. with low fuel in the FW-190 A-3 earlier I was experiencing needing much less stabilizer.  I know we've been talking bf-109's but, some chats with my wingman kind of indicated I was experiencing the same need for more stabilizer.

 

I was messing around on Berloga a few which has 30% fuel loads or full fuel with locked settings.    I was finding I was requiring less stabilizer with lower fuel loads than usual.

 

Conclusion - there are too many factors that play into this for me to wrap my head around.  Aircraft model, loadout+weight, speed, wind, perhaps even the density of the air itself.  The force feedback causing the pressure of the stick to change, the ease of human error in handling his stick, even if we've been doing it for years.   I'm sure I'm missing many aspects that are complex in nature when you break them down into a consumer ready PC edition.  

 

I can't pinpoint it.. and I'm doubting my own results after recent experiences, but dearest Otto, not because of the use of technochat percentages for a specific model of simulatied aircraft.  I had good intentions but I willingly admit not being an expert on FFB tech or aerodynamics and aircraft simulation. 

 

I think I may have fell prey to a bit of herd mentality and bit the bait that "SOMETHING IS BROKE FIX IT."  And I think instead, that perhaps now the question should be "Is it broke? If so how do we fix it?" 

 

What is visible is that experience is completely different, and well, in my mind FFB technology was wayyyyy ahead of it's time, and Microsoft made a mistake by not continuing production of said technology, as they never really had much in the way of competition with this gem. 

 

In summary, I give up.  :wacko:  I only have a small question in the back of my mind as to whether or not the behavior is intended.  Hands off with FFB is a different experience than hands off on a centered spring stick.

 

And I've stated via the previous thread that personally, I haven't found myself hindered by this.  Maybe that's the testing I should be doing.. because ultimately the things I've gained by using FFB technology have improved my ability maneuver and push the limits of aircraft within IL-2 BoX. 

 

That being said..despite good intentions my apologies for attempting to help answer a question.   I will shove my foot in my mouth for a bit and let others decide from here if they'd like to continue addressing the subject,  but I hope to see you guys out there to fly with and shoot down.   Nuff said I'm done, good luck.  

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites

About title actually I was referring to stabilizer and fact that 109 elevator is shifted out of center in FF stick (which is correct), if you want simulate this in non FF joy you have to shift pitch curve down and then elevator on the ground is in correct position. But even so other airplanes like Ju87 with trimms shows also that there is big difference in trimm position at the same flight conditions.

- After some recent experiences, I'm finding that in reality, I just have more questions than answers on this subject.  I've changed the title.  I think it more reflects the question that should have been asked in the previous thread. In fact.. I have more questions than I asked in the previous thread. 

 

As far as the Ju-87, and other aircraft that use trim wheels rather than an adjustable stabilizer, that to me seems rather impossible to compare.   The FFB stick moves with the adjustment as is reflected in the aircraft.. that's basically changing the center position of the stick when you adjust the wheel. The experience itself is so completely different than that of a spring centered stick that I'm not even going to begin to try and find issues with it myself.. you can literally feel where you have the trim set to in that kind of situation. you literally feel the speed of your plane as the stick moves with your trim adjustments.  I hardly even look at percentages or degrees if they're labeled anywhere when flying like this.  I'm going by airspeed and the feel of the stick. 

 

Planes with an adjustable stabilizer, the stick tends to always bounce back to center.. and maybe I require more understanding of this function as well. My experience leaves me believing that you don't get the same experience of having a set hands off center position as a reference to your current energy state.  You still have ways of judging your energy state with stick forces, but it's not anything I notice by the position of the stick when I remove my hands. But maybe there's more to the difference of centering via spring force or via simulated airflow forces and forcefeedback technology that I just am not wrapping my head around. 

Edited by headwarp
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Has this issue received developer attention yet?

 

I just made the switch last week to using no FFB (external program to simulate centering only) on my MSFFB2 joystick. The difference in the 109 is quite substantial.
I rarely blacked out prior to making the change, and now am able to pull more G forces at the same trim setting. I am blacking out from too much G force on the pilot much more frequently.

 

There are a lot of pilots flying with a disadvantage if they are still running FFB while flying german planes.

Edited by Tripwire
Link to post
Share on other sites

Has this issue received developer attention yet?

 

I just made the switch last week to using no FFB (external program to simulate centering only) on my MSFFB2 joystick. The difference in the 109 is quite substantial.

I rarely blacked out prior to making the change, and now am able to pull more G forces at the same trim setting. I am blacking out from too much G force on the pilot much more frequently.

 

There are a lot of pilots flying with a disadvantage if they are still running FFB while flying german planes.

Well check David's videos vs yaks he is using MSFF2

 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/28333-9jg27/page-3?do=findComment&comment=480190

 

BTW is true about huge difference in amount of stabilizers in FF vs none FF.

Edited by 307_Tomcat
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...