Auto level autopilot is single engine airplanes which gives additional speed is being abused in multiplayer

[LukeFF]

Are we there yet?

[RedKestrel]

3 hours ago, LukeFF said:

Are we there yet?

 

I smell something faint, almost like...a persistent odour of dead equine. In the distance, I hear a rhythmic thumping, as of someone repeatedly striking a slab of meat with a riding crop.

[Lusekofte]

5 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

You really want to emppty the servers, do you? If you have a problem with autolevel,

 

No I do not have a problem with auto level , I just happens to want a proper auto pilot on planes that had them. I really do not mind if we still have that A button. And I do not think such drastic events would occur like emptying the servers. A is needed as long as we do not have the auto pilot. For bombers that is. The fact that people cannot provide their drinks and go to the toilet before taking off is a minor issue in my mind. That is being less organized than me, and that is not good. If you aint better than me when it comes to logistics , you really need help

[Trooper117]

I can imagine Jason and Han looking at this thread, scratching their heads and saying ''Good grief ''...

[LukeFF]

7 minutes ago, Trooper117 said:

I can imagine Jason and Han looking at this thread, scratching their heads and saying ''Good grief ''...

 

Indeed. All of this time spent typing long-winded replies could be spent doing more productive things...like playing the game. 

[Rolling_Thunder]

1 hour ago, LukeFF said:

 

Indeed. All of this time spent typing long-winded replies could be spent doing more productive things...like playing the game. 

They are playing.They have autolevel on when typing

[dburne]

48 minutes ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

They are playing.They have autolevel on when typing

 

[VesseL]

5 hours ago, StickMan said:

I'm not even part of the autolevel discussion anymore as I have stopped caring at this point. However guys keep saying this and it's not true. The 109 has preset trims that were set on the ground. If you fly at the correct airspeed and power setting it will fly straight and level for more than 10 seconds, I guarantee it. But no you can't do it at max combat power like the auto level will let you.

 

So you must support the Limited autolevel. Ofcourse only if it would be done in 1 minute and it would not cost any issues elsewhere? I would.

How long more than 10 sec can one trim 109 to fly straight and level. 10 sec is not enough for toilet pause. So if the reason for autolevel is toilet brakes then we cant let the 109 pilots out of this option. It would be unfair.  

[LukeFF]

1 hour ago, Rolling_Thunder said:

They are playing.They have autolevel on when typing

 

[StickMan]

6 minutes ago, raaaid said:

wow age here is noticeable when toilet breaks are a priority

 

if at least was some hotty at the phone

Taking out auto level would cause many financial pain. Monthly expenditures on adult diapers would increase dramatically.

[KoN_]

2 hours ago, Trooper117 said:

I can imagine Jason and Han looking at this thread, scratching their heads and saying ''Good grief ''...

Agree . More important things to get on with !!! complaining about auto pilot . Crazy . 

[ZachariasX]

4 hours ago, raaaid said:

look what happened when i pressed A

 

 

Oh you wish. Having a girl next to you just like that.

 

But I do notice that in a thread about a disproven OP assumtion that is kept alive by the Spaghetti defense (throw everything at it in the hope something sticks longer than a minute) you are getting progressively on topic of the unfolding discussion.

[Aap]

I do notice that after 8 pages of discussion some people still did not get what the main point of discussion was about.

[Dakpilot]

The OP gist being de-bunked and lots of pointless and mis-misinformed arguing pretty much sums it up

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[Aap]

 

Ok, I thought this thread was kind of calming down, but let's go for another 8 pages then.

What I consider the main point of OP is something like this:

On 10.5.2018 at 7:15 PM, bies said:

I'm not against autolevel autopilot completely, but it should be limited to cruise speed to avoid abuse this expliot in multiplayer.

Several people within this same thread have admitted using this feature and explained how it can be used to gain advantage. There have also been tests related to that, for example by xvii-Dietrich. Yet, the "de-bunking" is concentrating on mentions about trimming etc, trying to find errors to de-bunk and ignoring the main point. There is a saying about that, not seeing the forrest behind trees or talking about holes in a fence, when discussion is about the fence itself.

Edited May 22, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[Aap]

 

Here are the test conclusions from Dietrich from half a year ago:

On 1.10.2017 at 2:34 PM, xvii-Dietrich said:

I have spent this morning doing some testing in a g4e and I can consistently get a significant speed increase using the auto-leveller (REF). I would challenge those who claim that you can get better performance by manually trimming to explain exactly how they obtain their results.

 

I certainly enjoy the challenge of trimming and tweaking the aircraft to the n^th degree, which is why I also fly civil-aviation sims so much. Likewise, I would not shy away from a server which had auto-level somehow disabled. But I also know that the auto-leveller gives me a major advantage, as well as letting me concentrate on other things (such as where-on-earth-am-I?).

 

On 10.9.2017 at 7:33 PM, xvii-Dietrich said:

The best way to trim is to use the auto-leveller.

 

The auto-leveller is always superior to any manual trim. So if you want to fly absolutely straight and level, using this arcade feature always works the best. Furthermore, it will also give you the best speed performance.

 

[ EDIT ] When the auto-leveller is on, the Yaw Trim makes no difference. However, I recommend setting it to -40% for convenience. Thus, when you take the auto-leveller off, the aircraft is roughly yaw stable. The stabliser should be set as low as possible. Using -100% gives you the best speed increase, but -85% is a gentle lift if you take the auto-leveller off, rather than nosing straight down. The difference in performance is negligible.

 

On 1.10.2017 at 2:23 PM, xvii-Dietrich said:

I am doing my testing using ground-hugging flying (circa 100m altitude). To trim, I have approximately the following settings:

 

 

• 100% Throttle, cowling flaps, oil-coolers
• 0% Höhengas
• -40% Yaw trim
• -85% Stabiliser

The exact numbers depend slightly on the temperature and wind speed/direction, but it is roughly this.

 

If I take the auto-leveller off, the aircraft holds course. So, basically the aircraft is trimmed. However, with the auto-leveller on, my speed increases. Why?

 

And, is there a way to ever get a better speed without the auto-leveller than with it?

 

So, if you start de-bunking things, then first de-bunk these test results from Dietrich. Then de-bunk the claims put in this thread about having the advantage of being able to concentrate on other things or being able to fly straight and level through clouds with full throttle and without artificial horizon. Right now it sounds like debunking the "earth is round" claim by pointing to dictionary that Earth should be written with capital "E", so this claim is debunked.

Edited May 22, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[klebor]

ehh..

You ruined my experience. I'm perfectly serious. I didn't know an autopilot is available in the game. Especially in expert mode. I didn't even bother mapping the key i was so sure it is not available anyway in MP servers.

All the time i was flying my plane like real pilot and i felt great! Now, when i discovered an autopilot because of this topic i constantly fly using this autopilot... 

I take off, take the gereral course and press autopilot. Only when i suspect some foes can be nerby i disengage, perform some S and engage again untill i reach the target. Than i put the bomb, i took general course to the base and engage autopilot.

It's so sad. Really. You could say - "so don't use if you don't like!"

I try to fight that because my overal experience became just worse, but i still feel that urge and often just engage the autopilot.

 

I think this whole "imaginative autopilot" when developers care about such tiny details (which rocks!) like different key bindings/axes/keys/encoders for different trimming methods is just ridiculous and funny. Just my experience.

 

It's like you have to check every bolt in your rocket simulator to care about the mass only to notice the fuel is infinite... In case you would drink too much beer and - you know, yes.

Edited May 22, 2018 by sereme1

[Dakpilot]

On 5/10/2018 at 6:15 PM, bies said:

What is really sad this completely unrealistic feature in single engine aircrafts is being abused in multiplayer to instantly perfectly trim the aircraft an unrealistically increase the airspeed.

 

From OP....

 

De-bunked

 

Cheers, Dakpilot

[6./ZG26_Custard]

Do you fly online regularly? Are you constantly having your backside handled to you on a plate? Well there is a simple solution when in those high stress combat situations. Just hit auto level at least you will be flying straight and level as you are shot down.

[unreasonable]

Fighter pilot doctrine - "never fly straight and level in a combat zone"

 

MP pilot doctrine - "flying straight and level in a combat zone is an exploit".

 

 

[Aap]

43 minutes ago, Dakpilot said:

From OP....

 

De-bunked

 

So, did you intentionally want to prove my point, by picking the mentioned capital "E" to de-bunk, instead of the brought up points that needed to be de-bunked?

I quote myself:

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

Yet, the "de-bunking" is concentrating on mentions about trimming etc, trying to find errors to de-bunk and ignoring the main point.

 

[unreasonable]

Kemp - the posts you reference are about trimming a JU52g4e. Quite apart from this being about a tri-motor, so discussion is about combining rudder and differential engine thrust to get best performance, whatever speed difference there is is going to make no conceivable difference to any operational result for that plane.  So "debunking" it, as you ask us to do, is irrelevant. (Anyway, for those of us like me who have not worked out how to set up a HOTAS for two motors, never mind three, it is just not going to happen).

 

Zacharias' posts and pictures illustrate that the auto-level does not affect trim - you get whatever trim you had before you press auto-level and the plane adjusts the control surfaces accordingly. So the speed, compared to best possible outcomes, may get a boost from having no manual variations - or it may get a penalty from having an incorrect trim for that flight condition. There is no systematic advantage.

 

Fact is that there is obviously a large constituency that likes having this feature and does not want it done away with or even limited by throttle settings. If individual servers could ban it, fine: then they could see if it affects their popularity.

[Aap]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Kemp - the posts you reference are about trimming a JU52g4e. Quite apart from this being about a tri-motor, so discussion is about combining rudder and differential engine thrust to get best performance, whatever speed difference there is is going to make no conceivable difference to any operational result for that plane.  So "debunking" it, as you ask us to do, is irrelevant.

 

Okay, even if you consider Ju52 irrelevant plane, has it been de-bunked that the same qualities do not apply to fighters? Have the other advantages described in this thread, related to situational awareness or cloud flying, been de-bunked?

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Zacharias' posts and pictures illustrate that the auto-level does not affect trim - you get whatever trim you had before you press auto-level and the plane adjusts the control surfaces accordingly.

 

Yes, we know that. That is the capital "E" that his been de-bunked here now several times. What about the other mentioned things?

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

So the speed, compared to best possible outcomes, may get a boost from having no manual variations - or it may get a penalty from having an incorrect trim for that flight condition.

 

So far we have seen that if stabilizer is incorrectly trimmed, you may get a penalty. What about the other cases? How about de-bunking the conclusions that Dietrich draw from his tests?

 

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

Fact is that there is obviously a large constituency that likes having this feature and does not want it done away with or even limited by throttle settings.

 

Yes, I can see that. Would just be interesting to see a logical explanation/argument why this feature has to work with full throttle. 

Edited May 22, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[unreasonable]

Because on a cold map anything less than full throttle might over-cool your engine even with closed radiators. Because Yaks are designed to be flown at full throttle almost all the time. Because at certain altitudes you need it to keep MP up....  Plenty of reasons, which have already been mentioned, quite apart from the fact that plenty of people just like it like this.

 

In short, throttle =/= speed: there is no simple relationship, so there is no easy fix.

 

But I know you are determined to have the last word, go for it. 

[Aap]

Looking at Dietrich's tests, he got the best auto-level speed with -100% stabilizer trim. Is that the ideal trim when you fly without auto-level?

Then, looking back to Zacharias' test, quote:

On 16.5.2018 at 3:11 PM, RedKestrel said:

It goes 450 km/h indicated like that. Full nose down trim, tailplane all "flat" and the plane goes 475 km/h indicated.

So, full nose down trim, 450 -> 475? Interesting. Maybe a typo, but wouldn't that be a useful capital "E" to de-bunk and discredit everything else? Or how about this capital "E":

On 16.5.2018 at 2:47 PM, ZachariasX said:

Ok for you, here our dear 109-G6

Now try to find a G6 in his proof picture. Can I now always refer to that, if I want to "de-bunk" anything that is said about the topic?

 

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Because on a cold map anything less than full throttle might over-cool your engine even with closed radiators.

Wow, that must be cold. Luckily I have never encountered such levels of coldness yet.

 

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Because Yaks are designed to be flown at full throttle almost all the time.

Aha ... that is good information. I wonder why they even installed a throttle lever to this plane.

 

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

Plenty of reasons, which have already been mentioned

Well, I kind of meant some kind of real and logical reason. "People just like it" is in a way logical of course, just does not dwell into the "why" part.

 

25 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

But I know you are determined to have the last word, go for it.

Yeah, I am happy to go for another 8 pages or 8 more after that, no problem there. I already kind of thought that dust was settling down, but am available, if there is still need to do a few more rounds.

Edited May 22, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[ZachariasX]

2 hours ago, II./JG77_Kemp said:

 

Now try to find a G6 in his proof picture. Can I now always refer to that, if I want to "de-bunk" anything that is said about the topic?

 

Oh wow. True. Yes. This changes everything. But I‘m glad that you found the error. I‘ll leave it wrong so everyone can see how wrong I am.

 

[Aap]

40 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

Oh wow. True. Yes. This changes everything. But I‘m glad that you found the error. I‘ll leave it wrong so everyone can see how wrong I am.

 

 

I am glad you appreciate the absurdity of the proof. Maybe it helps you relate to the absurdity of your great "de-bunking test" being used as a reference to de-bunk everything the OP said, despite it merely touching stabilizer trims. Speaking of which, looking at the systematic results of Dietrich's tests and vagueness of results in your test, I start to wonder if it even de-bunks the OP's trim related point. I hope you were not trying to mislead with your  results.

[Aap]

So, my dear de-bunkers, I decided to do a quick test, so we would not need to have the same ping-pong for the next 8 pages, but could have something new to argue about. According to my own personal test, your reference test that de-bunks everything has been de-de-bunked. Results were pretty much in line with Dietrich's tests. 

 

Short description of test procedure:

Went to a quick mission, picked Bf109G2, full fuel, a single plane mission, altitude 4000 m, full throttle.

First test:  Find out optimal stab trim for level flight. Result -80%.

Second test: Start with -100% stab trim. After achieving top speed, change stab trim to -80%. After a couple of minutes disengage autolevel and fly manually.

Results: After 3 minutes with -100% stab trim: 495 km/h. Trim to -80%, two minutes later: 493 km/h. Disengage autolevel, two minutes later: 489 km/h.

Third test: Tested also flying manually from the beginning, same conditions as before. Could get to 486 km/h at max, but speed varied between 480-486 km/h.

 

Pictures of the second test below. Times when I changed trim and disengaged auto-level can be seen on cockpit clock.

[Ehret]

So, around 10-15km/h maximum advantage doing the auto-level - that is 3m/s difference. Not enough to get out of the enemy's gun solution but very nice for cruising. Airplanes with full trims should gain less with auto-level on.

[VesseL]

Wow, what a thread! Lets see what happens now. Kemp Thaks for the test, and your patience and logic!

[AndyJWest]

I'd like to see II./JG77_Kemp's test repeated by other people, in conditions where you can actually be sure the aircraft is flying level. I've tried it myself, on the Kuban map over the sea (so the HUD gives a meaningful altitude figure: it reads 'height over the ground' which isn't a lot of use over a non-flat surface). I found it difficult to maintain level accurately (in these conditions, the elevator and trim are very sensitive) but as far as I could tell, if you kept the height accurate, the speed matched the autolevel one. Any climb slowed it down, and any dive speeded it up. The only way I could slow by 10 km/h was by climbing.

Edited May 22, 2018 by AndyJWest

[unreasonable]

4 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I'd like to see II./JG77_Kemp's test repeated by other people, in conditions where you can actually be sure the aircraft is flying level. I've tried it myself, on the Kuban map over the sea (so the HUD gives a meaningful altitude figure: it reads 'height over the ground' which isn't a lot of use over a non-flat surface). I found it difficult to maintain level accurately (in these conditions, the elevator and trim are very sensitive) but as far as I could tell, if you kept the height accurate, the speed matched the autolevel one. Any climb slowed it down, and any dive speeded it up. The only way I could slow by 10 km/h was by climbing.

 

You cannot do this easily using full engine management because of the engine time limits. Kemp has to use the G-2 because it's maximum boost is limited to 1.3ata which allows 30 minutes full throttle. With  other 109s full throttle will put the MP into zone where the engine will start to fail before he can even stabilize a top speed never mind complete his tests. (Hence why this whole discussion is entirely theoretical).

 

He does not say what map he is on or what conditions - looks like Stalingrad summer, so I went with that: 12.00 as per the clock.  As you progress throughout the mission the radiators are on auto and gradually open during the test as the temperatures pick up. No way to tell Kemp's radiator settings: as he does not show the required data. And as you say, it is extremely hard to tell if the plane actually is level or climbing slightly while under manual control.   

 

What Zacharias' test on his pre-teen "G-6" demonstrated is that the auto-level button does not affect stab trim, and that stab trim affects speed with auto-level on. Kemp's pictures 1 and 2 merely confirm this: ( I take picture 1 to be auto-level at 100% stab, 2 as 80% stab, and 3 as manual flying at 80% stab. Although this is also a puzzle since he claims that 80% is optimum yet the speed in picture 2 is lower. But this may be incorrect, since the pictures are not properly labelled).  

 

But what Kemp is trying to prove with his tests in picture 3 is that he cannot get the same top speed manually that he can get with auto-level, which is an entirely different issue. Unfortunately his screenshots do not show this - they merely show that he was not at the same top speed at the time the screenshot was taken, but we do not know why. The merest twitch while pressing the auto-level button can lose - or gain - 4kph.    

 

 

7 hours ago, Ehret said:

So, around 10-15km/h maximum advantage doing the auto-level - that is 3m/s difference. Not enough to get out of the enemy's gun solution but very nice for cruising. Airplanes with full trims should gain less with auto-level on.

 

No - at the same stab setting, which is pictures 2 and 3, the difference is 493-489 = 4 kph, not 10-15.    And 495-489 = 6 kph. About 10-15 kph my foot!

Edited May 23, 2018 by unreasonable

[AndyJWest]

Unreasonable, I know exactly what Kemp was trying to demonstrate. I was comparing the IAS I got with autolevel on and off. I wasn't comparing my airspeed measurements directly with Kemps (though they weren't significantly different from his autolevel on results). And I did the test under 'normal' settings, since this seemed the best way to ensure consistent results.  

 

 

 

 

[unreasonable]

I just replied to your post since you mentioned the speed difference you got - the discussion below not specifically aimed at you, just my thoughts on his test post.  Should have replied to him, sry!

 

When I ran a test just now at what I though were Kemp's settings I also could not tell if I was faster or slower on manual, the speed difference being so small and sensitive.

 

[Ehret]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

No - at the same stab setting, which is pictures 2 and 3, the difference is 493-489 = 4 kph, not 10-15.    And 495-489 = 6 kph. About 10-15 kph my foot!

 

I was trying to read the best case from provided data... If it is just few km/h then it is a non-issue - even more so than it was not at 10-15. From my experience flying airplanes with full trims (P-40, P-39 and La-5/F) when coordinated the difference was imperceptible.

[unreasonable]

19 minutes ago, Ehret said:

 

I was trying to read the best case from provided data... If it is just few km/h then it is a non-issue - even more so than it was not at 10-15. From my experience flying airplanes with full trims (P-40, P-39 and La-5/F) when coordinated the difference was imperceptible.

 

Fair enough - it seems like a non issue to me too. I would be much more worried about the timer issue in anything other than a G-2, rather than an extra (maybe) few kph.

 

(My foot much better now  )

[Aap]

Andy and unreasonable, thank you for your contributions and additional tests. I hope more people will test it, so we get more data about the matter.

While your tests did not provide numerical data or de-bunk the speed claims of OP, they provided valuable information otherwise. Namely these experiences:

7 hours ago, AndyJWest said:

I found it difficult to maintain level accurately

 

2 hours ago, unreasonable said:

it is extremely hard to tell if the plane actually is level

 

They seem to be more in line with OP's claim that "Using autopilot you are perfectly efficient beyound human capabilities" and de-de-bunk some of the de-bunkers claims like "computer isn’t doing anything that you can’t already do". And all that while you were specifically trying to fly level, in contrast to the mentioned advantages of being able to scan surroundings or figure out your whereabouts or fly through the clouds without artificial horizon.

[AndyJWest]

Since it is apparent at this point that Kemp is only interested in dragging out this discussion endlessly, and is incapable of actually producing any meaningful evidence to back up his claims (even his own screenshots seem to illustrate that the aircraft was climbing in his test), I have added him to my ignore list. I suggest that others do the same. I'm sure the developers will, since they don't modify code on the basis of 'exploits' that have been repeatedly shown to be insignificant.

[Aap]

Now this starts to be a bit silly.

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

Since it is apparent at this point that Kemp is only interested in dragging out this discussion endlessly

After 8 pages of ping-pong I actually did a test and presented my results, as requested, and that is the point that made it apparant to you that I only want to drag this discussion endlessely? Interesting counter move, even if not very logical in my mind.

 

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

incapable of actually producing any meaningful evidence to back up his claims

Hmm ... you really find the de-bunkers "evidence" somehow more meaningful than my test results (which are in line with Dietrich's test results) and logical explanations of auto-level advantages, given in this thread?

 

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

even his own screenshots seem to illustrate that the aircraft was climbing in his test

I was concentrating on keeping it level and ball in the middle and would say that I was able to do it relatively well. Maybe some people can do it better, some might be worse at it. Feel free to do your own tests to de-de-de-bunk my test results. If you are referring to the altitudes on the pictures, that is ground altitude. Feel free to test it yourself, just go to quick mission and fly on autolevel and see that the altitude value is changing all the time.

 

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I have added him to my ignore list

That is a nice way to disengage from discussion. I am sure it proves you were right about everything.

 

49 minutes ago, AndyJWest said:

I suggest that others do the same. I'm sure the developers will

Can you be sure that developers will put me on ignore list for running a simple test? Maybe you should help them understand the need for it:

On 21.5.2018 at 10:57 AM, AndyJWest said:

Make a concrete proposal, indicating exactly what change you are advocating,  presenting verifiable evidence for why the change is necessary, and a full description of what the side effects are going to be.

 

Edited May 23, 2018 by II./JG77_Kemp

[US63_SpadLivesMatter]

If you're worried about dudes chasing you down in autolevel, or dudes running away in autolevel; why don't you just use autolevel?