"Reset trim" button do not work in Bf-109, FW-190, Mc-202 when it works in other planes with similar imput devices (rotating wheels inside the cockpit).

[303_Bies]

In the game there is "reset trim" button. It causes reset all trim axes available with one click.

It doesn't work in Bf-109, FW-190, Mc-202.

This aircraft - like others in which "reset button" works - have similar imput device (wheel which have to be manually rotated by pilot with left hand) or buttons in case of FW-190.

 

Unfortunately there is a difference and, indeed, it gives you very practical and unrealistic advantage to some planes and it is being abused especially in MP:

Obviously the most common situation when this is abused is flying i.e. Yak or La-5 with ~ minus 50% trim, then suddenly, after pushing one magic key setting trim to 0% and performing tight turn or dive recovery.

In i.e. Bf109 you can't do that, you have to rotate the wheel (hold the button, encoder etc.) like the real pilot in both - Bf-109 and Yak/La-5 was forced to do.

 

You have to exert constant pressure and you have your hand out of action in one plane when in other you have free hand. 

It is not realistic nor equal treatment.

 

 

Shortly: for me "reset button" should be removed since it is diminishing and negating a lot of hard detailed work of developers considering trim mechanics in this new generation simulator.

But if we choose to let it stay - treat all planes equally - why giving "reset button" to some planes and to other(Germans) not? When the imput devices in the cockpit looked and worked the same way.

 

cheers and have a nice day

 

[MicEzo]

For me whole "reset trim" button should be deleted. 

2 minutes ago, bies said:

for me "reset button" should be removed since it is diminishing and negating a lot of hard detailed work of developers considering trim mechanics in this new generation simulator.

This.

Reset button is:

- relict of past 

- negation of great implementation of trimming devices of WW 2 planes in the game

- unfair/unrealistic advantage for some planes

[Aplana_Moscuu]

Those planes mentioned don't have trim tabs but an adjustable incidence stabilizer. I suppose that's the reason there are no trim reset functionality. I agree that it should be removed all together.

[HR_Zunzun]

I do not how reset trim can give you an advantage when you can bring your trim to your desired position by using your thumb. The reason for the reset trim is the lack of clues in the keyboard when passing through the centre of the wheel when in the real plane I think you have them (I suppose like a detent). Giving an advantage? Very dubiously. You can be as effective manually as you can keep your hands on your hotas while doing it (I can manoeuvre, shot, move my flaps and look around while pressing the button until in the desired position).

In any case, if there is a plane that has an advantage, is the 109 with the possibility of setting the stabilizer on an axis. Basically, you can select whatever position you want for your trim at the flick of the movement of the axis. Not just going from -100 to 0 (like the reset trim)  but going from -100 to +100 (or any other position) just by bringing the axis from fully forward to fully aft. That takes less than a second (a split of a second actually) and leave your hands free for whatever you want to do with them. Even in the past has been a discussion about an exploit in the 109 by linking the stabilizer axis to the main vertical axis and giving you better authority while manoeuvring.

That could bring the fact that due to limitations to the cockpit interface in a desktop pc we are able to do things that, in reality, pilots were unable. Like change trims, move flaps or even be looking around while heavy manoeuvring. Possibly that is the subject of the next main improvement in term of realism. Not achieving performance within 1% of published figures but achieving a better simulation of the limitations of the real pilot in our pcs.

 

pd: The poster could include the name of the 109 exploit for the stabilizer in the description if he still thinks this give any real advantage.

 

 

[L3Pl4K]

The function should be removed. It is strange to see, how all trim adjustment can be reset at the same time. In general, a anthropomorphic control input, like in Cliffs of Dover, would be an great improvement to this game.

Edited May 26, 2018 by L3Pl4K

[LukeFF]

4 hours ago, L3Pl4K said:

In general, a anthropomorphic control input, like in Cliffs of Dover, would be an great improvement to this game.

 

Good grief, this again? This so-called feature was and is a disaster.

[L3Pl4K]

25 minutes ago, LukeFF said:

Good grief, this again? This so-called feature was and is a disaster. 

Then make a non disaster version.

[AndyJWest]

22 minutes ago, L3Pl4K said:

Then make a non disaster version.

 

Explain how.

[L3Pl4K]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

 

Explain how.

It is not my job to explain how. Some human beings like the idea of the feature. If a good interpretation/implementation will be a part of BOX, what would be the problem?
Howsoever, I would like to purchase the IL2 products to enable this and others features in the future.

[AndyJWest]

So you want the developers to include something, but aren't going to explain how it should work? Good luck with that...

[Aplana_Moscuu]

The reason for the lack of cues is the lack of stick and pedal forces. Actually for improved realism there should be an automatic trim for the rudder or at least a HUD which gives you sideslip information. The ball just doesn't cut it.

 

Those who are familiar with "Aces High" and real aviation will know that "combat trim" is actually more realistic in a computer simulation than manual trim without force feedback.

[L3Pl4K]

1 hour ago, AndyJWest said:

So you want the developers to include something, but aren't going to explain how it should work?

How it should work....? A Simulation of the possible inputs with both hands at the same time, depending of possibilities by the input devices of the real aircrafts. Oh, before you ask, both hands with all fingers.

[AndyJWest]

Which is how the CloD one was supposed to work. The problem was deciding, when there were too many inputs, which ones to exclude. A decision that had to be made when real input data could include not just intentional inputs but also the inevitable spikes etc from analog input devices.  Without some means to distinguish between intentional and unintentional inputs, the system can never work. And as far as I'm aware, USB mind-reading devices aren't yet available...   

Edited May 26, 2018 by AndyJWest

[Field-Ops]

Yes, that CLoD anthropomorphic function really screwed with my ability to even fly. If one axis was jittery and was jumping between a couple percent all your other functions locked up. Even the flight stick and throttles locked up on numerous occasions. Forget your other necessary functions like radiators, RPM and mixture... Its really not worth bothering with implementing. 

 

As for the trim tab reset function I really dont see a need for it. Your percentages are displayed in your hud and the game models your trim tabs in your cockpit so having the game hold your hand in this way is really leaning more towards game fiction rather than simming. I'm for its removal.

[L3Pl4K]

Axis jittering?...Saitek quality?
IL2 has a general jittering filter. Extend the function, maybe in 2+ Filter groups for the axis.

So the CLOD version of function is far from perfect.

I believe that a engineer/progammer can create a better/ more enjoyable/acceptable function, if he analysis the old one with all the pros and cons.

[unreasonable]

1 hour ago, L3Pl4K said:

Axis jittering?...Saitek quality?
IL2 has a general jittering filter. Extend the function, maybe in 2+ Filter groups for the axis.

So the CLOD version of function is far from perfect.

I believe that a engineer/progammer can create a better/ more enjoyable/acceptable function, if he analysis the old one with all the pros and cons.

 

I can see the problem though, even though I like the concept of queuing commands. If you widen the filter to get rid of spikes, how does the program recognize the very small inputs you need to make on, for instance, trim corrections, or getting your throttle just at - but not above - the allowed EM limit? (Both of which are pretty hard to do now....)

 

No doubt software engineers could solve this if they wanted to, but I expect as usual it is all about time and money.  

Edited May 27, 2018 by unreasonable

[HR_Zunzun]

1 hour ago, unreasonable said:

 

I can see the problem though, even though I like the concept of queuing commands. If you widen the filter to get rid of spikes, how does the program recognize the very small inputs you need to make on, for instance, trim corrections, or getting your throttle just at - but not above - the allowed EM limit? (Both of which are pretty hard to do now....)

 

No doubt software engineers could solve this if they wanted to, but I expect as usual it is all about time and money.  

 

Indeed. Time/money is the main limitation.

I still think there is a lot of room for improvement in that regard. Not saying that the queuing system is the way to go but something worth exploring. Another concept (just that, not saying is viable) could be linking the speed of effect to Gs. The idea being, if you are heavy manoeuvring, you have more difficulties in moving your hands around. So moving your trims, deploying flaps or looking around (this affecting more your neck/torso) should take longer. As we have a system that introduces a delay in the speed at which, for instance, we move wheels for trims/flaps then there could be a further delay the more Gs your virtual body is experiencing. That could potentially simulate better how a real pilot had to cope with Gs and the cockpit interface they had.

In my opinion, aeroplanes relative performances are currently quite accurate and the discrepancies may lay out in other fields.