Flying on Rails (Rudder input)

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

I played that casual aerial combat game which shall not be named on and off for a few years. I started playing the... uh... "Simulator" battles this past summer and it seriously sparked my interest. 

Of course, I was flying w/ only a mouse and keyboard.

So, I decided to kit myself out w/ a new joystick and rudder pedals (and later some head tracking gear). I also picked up IL2 BoS during Christmas sales. Immediately, I noticed how much better everything felt to, first of all, be flying in an actual sim, and second of all, using a joystick over mouse control. I've really been enjoying my time w/ BoX since then, but I still have a long way to go :P.

 

Anyway, earlier today I felt like getting my feet wet with... well let's call it Digitized Conflict Emulator. (I don't know if admins/mods are stingy about mentioning other games on the forum so I'm playing it safe). The very first thing I noticed after getting my TF-51D in the air was how "squirrley" it was, specifically with regards to rudder input. It was still pretty easy to fly, but I could really feel my rudder inputs. I just don't really feel my rudder inputs when flying with any aircraft in BoX the same way I did flying the TF-51. If I had to compare the two experiences I would say that in comparison BoX feels a bit like flying on rails when it comes to yaw control.

 

Perhaps this is just an aircraft specific issue, and I'm making a fuss over nothing. It'll be interesting to actually be able to compare the experiences directly once Bodenplatte is released and we can compare the LF Mk. IX and P-51D directly between the two games.

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Difficult to tell without knowing which aircraft in BoX you compare it to. Overall both sims are very dissimilar without any clear 'superiour' aspect over the other.

 

Mind you that BoX simulates prop wash which combined with a plane designed for stability may give the impression of 'flying on rail' (actually this term is quite misleading as it'soften  used negatively while being quite natural for all stable flight regimes in reality).

 

BoBP will surely allow for more closer comparisons and discussion about aircraft modeling between the two.

[Ehret]

Mustangs, especially later variants, were known for directional instability. Even the final H version, which was redesigned from a scratch, ended with an enlarged rudder because of that trait.

Edited March 10, 2018 by Ehret

[Lensman]

Which rudder pedals are you using?

Some make inputs more problematic than others. 

[Mewt]

I wouldn’t be too worried about mentioning War Thunder. Despite its many ‘simulator’ shortcoming, WT has introduced the genre and made it accesssable to many people

that would have otherwise avoided it due to a perceived barrier of entry. 

 

I’ve personally had a few friends who I’ve introduced WW2 air combat through WT, who have then gone on to buy and play IL2 Great Battles, CLOD and DCS. 

 

There is room enough to like and enjoy ALL the games.

 

And WT can be celebrated as the gateway drug to getting people hooked on the harder stuff :D

 

On topic: what pedals are you using?

[Herne]

BoX also models resistance on the control surfaces. which is why the 109 locks up in a steep dive at speeds over 600kph. Not sure if this applies to aileron and rudder inputs as well, but I do not see any reason why it shouldn't. 

Without power assistance though, the faster you go the more effort it takes to move the controls, having said that generally speaking less control deflection is usually needed to achieve the desired effect.

 

Not really sure what your expectations are. At relatively high speed I would not expect that full rudder deflection would be possible. Air passing over the control surface at 500 KPH is going to make it extremely difficult to move very far.

 

At much slower speeds though, close to the stall. Full deflection would be relatively easy, and is the usual method for inducing a spin during spin recovery training.

Edited March 10, 2018 by =FEW=Herne

[Stig]

I flew the P-51 in DCS for the first time in several months just last night, trying out VR. I wasn't looking for it, but I didn't notice any particular difference in yaw compared to the BoX aircraft I normally fly.

[Wedgewood]

2 hours ago, -W-Mewt said:

I wouldn’t be too worried about mentioning War Thunder. Despite its many ‘simulator’ shortcoming, WT has introduced the genre and made it accesssable to many people

that would have otherwise avoided it due to a perceived barrier of entry. 

 

I’ve personally had a few friends who I’ve introduced WW2 air combat through WT, who have then gone on to buy and play IL2 Great Battles, CLOD and DCS. 

 

There is room enough to like and enjoy ALL the games.

 

And WT can be celebrated as the gateway drug to getting people hooked on the harder stuff :D

 

Exactly,  War Thunder is directly responsible for me buying the BOX set.  Without War Thunder introducing me to combat sims for free, I may never have taken the plunge.

[=362nd_FS=Hiromachi]

56 minutes ago, Stig said:

I flew the P-51 in DCS for the first time in several months just last night, trying out VR. I wasn't looking for it, but I didn't notice any particular difference in yaw compared to the BoX aircraft I normally fly.

I on the other hand notice a significant difference. Particularly when you play with your engine and move throttle constantly to stay in formation, you have to move your legs to keep ball centered and you can just see how even at slightest inputs your nose moves. While staying in BoS coordinated is just as important, I dont see any aircraft to be relying near as much on rudder inputs. 

 

I can't wait for P-51 to appear in BoS and a chance to compare the two. 

[TP_Sparky]

I think it's good that torque-related effects on takeoff are glossed over in IL2.  It keeps people from hours of frustration and gets them into the air to enjoy the meat and potatoes of the game.  I approve.  You'd lose players if they spent hours groundlooping and crashing without ever finding their place of honor as a victory mark on the tail of an experienced player's a/c.

 

I have a couple thousand hours military time but started on ragwing taildraggers.  DCS models the torque produced at low speeds and high power settings in realistic fashion.  As in real life, line up carefully, aileron down into a crosswind, lock the tailwheel, slowly and smoothly advance the throttle PART WAY and you might need a touch of differential braking to keep the massive torque from pulling your nose to the left into a groundloop.  As you gain speed the rudder gains effectiveness from the increased airflow over it and you can smoothly advance the throttle to takeoff power with due attention to the rudder to maintain alignment with the runway centerline.  Depending on the crosswind you probably started takeoff roll with a healthy amount of right rudder in and feed in more or less to maintain alignment.

 

In BoX, it takes almost no rudder input to keep the nose aligned even if you advance full throttle from a standing start.  That makes it easier for players but is not is any way realistic.  My beautiful Yak-1b has 1,000 hp and it should take gobs of rudder at the start of takeoff roll but it doesn't.  I've flown Piper Cubs with 60 hp engines that needed more corrective rudder on takeoff roll than my Yak-1b.  

 

I love IL2.  I can't get my control bindings to save in DCS but I've flown its P-51 and Spitfire and the torque effects on takeoff are realistic.  The effect is slightly mitigated on a grass field and in snow (snow can cause its own torque-related problems) but torque effect and the consequent need for rudder input are not realistically modeled for takeoff on IL2, which is fine with me.

[Stig]

1 hour ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I on the other hand notice a significant difference. Particularly when you play with your engine and move throttle constantly to stay in formation, you have to move your legs to keep ball centered and you can just see how even at slightest inputs your nose moves. While staying in BoS coordinated is just as important, I dont see any aircraft to be relying near as much on rudder inputs. 

 

I can't wait for P-51 to appear in BoS and a chance to compare the two. 

 

I only flew a couple of short flights, takeoffs and one successful landing; I didn't notice that it was particularly 'squirrily' and the ball seemed pretty much centered with little rudder imput from me. However, I haven't flown it  much and not lately either, so it may just be my impression that there is not much difference.

[TP_Sparky]

Landing is easy if you smoothly roll off the throttle when landing is assured and smoothly take out the rudder.  You're usually more concerned with any crosswind, especially a gusty crosswind.  It's takeoff roll through rotation that requires careful rudder input.  My father flew civilian since he was 16 and he got one flight in a surplus P-51.  He almost torque-rolled it on takeoff and it scared him to death.  He landed and never wanted to fly it again.  I wish he'd bought it and put it in a barn for me.

[dburne]

14 minutes ago, 19//Rekt said:

 

I'm with you on all of this. After living through the original ground handling I appreciate what we have now very much. Taxi, takeoff, and landing require enough attention to be interesting.

 

Completely agree.

[[TWB]Sauerkraut-]

11 hours ago, =362nd_FS=Hiromachi said:

I on the other hand notice a significant difference. Particularly when you play with your engine and move throttle constantly to stay in formation, you have to move your legs to keep ball centered and you can just see how even at slightest inputs your nose moves. While staying in BoS coordinated is just as important, I dont see any aircraft to be relying near as much on rudder inputs. 

 

I can't wait for P-51 to appear in BoS and a chance to compare the two. 

 

I'm with you. I don't see my rudder inputs making that much of a difference when flying in il2 when compared to DCS.

[Brizzly]

In DCS, you have to turn ‘Takeoff Assistance’ off in the settings for each taildragger if you want to try their actual ground handling model.  It defaults to on.

 

With it on, IL2 feels very similar, with it off, whole different ballgame.

[SCG_motoadve]

For playabilty reasons understand the developers using lower torque effects for take off and in game. 

 

We dont have in game one of the main characteristics of real warbirds, the huge amount of torque, and the challenges associated with it not only on take offs.

In flight, you can reduce the power in a dogfight you can slow down a lot, power at idle, some flaps, and  then add full power suddenly, and the amount of yaw its very low, you can get away with almost no rudder input, where you should have to use full rudder in this cases to counter the torque.

 

Current FM gives the feeling of flight, and its pretty good and realistic, adding a bit more torque effect will makes you feel you are flying a powerful 1000 plus HP airplane, and will make you more busy with the rudder and more careful how you manage the throttle but might be bad for playability (having ultra real model optional would be nice)

[BMA_Hellbender]

Try the I-16 for a plane with extremely sensitive rudder input. Better yet: fly a Sopwith Camel in Rise of Flight (soon in Flying Circus).

[RothbardVso1*3]

I don't disagree completely with motoadve, who I've seen on Backcountrypilot.org.  But, I think the game has it about right, considering the footwork I do with most of the planes to get them off the ground.

 

Here's a pilot report by Budd Davisson (http://airbum.com/pireps/PirepBearcat.2.html) on the Grumman Bearcat. Budd has as much tailwheel time as about anyone; he teaches it in a Pitts S2, doing multiple landings every single day, and has for decades. The Bearcat is about as much engine bolted to as little airplane short of a GeeBee racer, by the way:

"I figured that tiny tailwheel would be my salvation in controlling the torque, so I sucked the stick up to my navel and fed the power in as fast as I could without inducing too much torque/P-factor. The acceleration was absolutely unbelievable. The noise wasn't as bad as the Mustang's, but the acceleration began to blur the sides of the runway. By the time I had full power, the airplane felt as if it were going to lift off three-point, so I neutralized the stick and let the tail come up. I was amazed, frightened and exhilarated all at the same time. In a matter of seconds, it leaped off the runway. I was off the ground before I even began to think about torque. There was absolutely none, not a trace. Not once did it swerve, or even give any indication it was going to."

 

And this report on a 250hp Globe Swift. Keep in my the Swift was originally an 85hp aircraft:

" I guess the thing uppermost in my mind when I started the takeoff was torque. This was an awfully little airplane and a mighty big engine. I screwed the throttle vernier slowly in, or at least I thought it was slowly.
 
Every turn of the throttle rewarded me with a tremendous increase in noise and a smack in the small of my back. It accelerated like a full-grown fighter and when I pushed the nose down, the runway looked as if it were going by at a fantastic rate. With that big prop blowing so hard on the rudder, it was effective as soon as the throttle started moving. Even so, I didn't need all that control because it tracked straight ahead. I pulled it off the ground and tried to hold 100 mph while the heavy-duty pump sucked the gear up. "

 

I guess my point is, not all airplanes respond the same way. Slower, lower powered planes have much less rudder authority at their low speeds than faster, higher powered planes. Hence you need to feed in more rudder to keep it tracking straight, for a longer period of time because they accelerate poorly. Which is part of their charm.  

 

The 160hp Citabria I was flying yesterday required lots of little jabs to keep her tracking on takeoff, a good bit of right leg in the climb, and loads of left rudder to swing the nose around for base and final at 67kts. The only time I needed full rudder deflection was in a slip, and that was more out of fun than need. I coulda pulled more flaps, or set up my approach better.

 

If I have a beef with the FM it's that the aircraft seem to bounce too easily, and too high, especially when at stall speed. If you don't have enough speed and you drop it it full stall, you can't really bounce much. But, maybe I've said too much about my landings...

[SCG_motoadve]

Good to see another Backcountrypilot.org pilot here in Il2 , its an amazing simulator , and great fun.

Thanks for posting those pilots reports. 

Agreed on the bouncy part.

[Wolferl_1791]

On 3/11/2018 at 3:20 AM, itsthatguy said:

 

I'm with you. I don't see my rudder inputs making that much of a difference when flying in il2 when compared to DCS.

 

I'm not sure what you are expecting from the rudder of a real plane. In the air, the rudder is there to keep you pointing straight into the airflow. Everytime you use your ailerons, the wing which moves down receives extra lift, while the wing which goes up loses lift (gains drag). This means that when you roll say LEFT, the nose will slide right and up slightly. In a plane with really long wings, or in a plane with a fast roll, you need to use rudder with aileron input (move both stick and foot at the same time). If you don't do that, the ball with indicate sideslip after each roll. Usually it doesn't take a lot of rudder to do that. And it takes little force from your feet to move it a few degrees. Since the rudder is above the center of lift, it will also lower your nose the required amount. The further it sits behind the center of lift (and center of mass), the more it will torque (yaw) the nose of the plane to one side or the other.

 

Now assume that you are flying really fast and you smash the rudder.

1. you need a ton of leg power to do that.

2. the extra drag will slow the plane down significantly and suddenly. And you will need a lot of aileron counter as well to keep the plane level. 

3. at one point, the forces on the fuselage will balance out and stop the plane from yawing any more

4. as your speed decreases (see 2) the fuselage will provide less stability and the plane will yaw more and more. Which means that the fuselage drag will increase more and more and your speed will decrease even more. If you don't have a decent engine running, you might stall from it quite fast (opposite wing will shoot up).

5. your actual "flat turn" will lag behind what you expect, as if you're "on rails", because the main turning method of your plane (lift vector) is still pointing up and not into the turn. The only thing "turning" you is the direction of the airflow from the propeller. You can notice this if you slideslip during landing due to lateral winds. Just a bit of opposite roll will nullify the flat turn completely and allow you to crab to the runway in a straight line (no turning at all)

 

So IL-2 is not "on rails", but WT is (slightly). Granted, WT has fixed many planes in this regard. For example, the P40 was able to flat turn a full 360 in 20 seconds. Some planes didn't even lose speed at full rudder input. They've fixed most of that, but you can still do flat turns way to easily in that game. "On rails" doesn't mean "inertia", it means "space sim".

 

Also, using the rudder in any sim, no matter how good, is less instinctive as it is in real life, because in real life, when you fly uncoordinated, you can really feel it in your stomach. In a sim, we either over-compensate, or we don't do it at all.

 

Edited March 12, 2018 by Wolferl_1791

[TP_Sparky]

22 hours ago, RothbardVso1*3 said:

"...Citabria I was flying ...in a slip, and that was more out of fun than need.

 

Citabria is a fancy upengined Champ with flaps.  I cut my teeth on a 65hp Champ, hand-propped, NORDO, and it slipped beautifully (not all a/c do) and came down like a bank vault without gaining an knot rounding out to land on a golf green's length.  Those were the days.  Used to tie the tail wheel with a rope to the cockpit, prop it, jump in the cockpit, pull the slip knot and taxi out.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I'm not a fan of lowered torque effects for the sake of "playability".  When it comes to flight model, my view is the more realistic, the better.  If that causes some casual players to flip their aircraft on it's back on a go-around, or something like that, then they should just have to learn.