Controls Responses

[unreasonable]

12 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

<snip>

 

@unreasonable.  You are no doubt familiar with the I-16.  This has no trim.  So you need to constantly apply stick pressure.  It's part of the workload of the aircraft.  It's part of the very character of the aircraft!  It isn't a big deal, but it definitely is a factor in flying and fighting in the thing, and I don't think that some guy ought to be able to calibrate that away, especially in a competitive multiplayer environment.  Guys like you want to provide a gamey workaround so that the plane will fly level and true, without the need to attend to anything like that?  Or maybe, to further demonstrate the effect on planes even if they do have some measure of trim, maybe you don't like having to park your foot on the rudder when doing a high speed getaway in the 109?  Novice pilots frequently forget to center the ball, and die as a result, but viola, thanks to magic offsets, one need not bother! This is a flight simulation, and while certain concessions can be made to playability,  I think that automatic flight control inputs go a step too far, and that's exactly what control offsets are.

 

Sure: but you can still use auto-level.  The reality is that the game is full of gamey workarounds to allow people to enjoy it. Runway starts, simplified start ups operations, no weapons jams etc.  I like having to use forwards pressure in the Dr.1 and am a little disappointed that this is not needed in the BoX Spitfire.  This is not about my preferences of how to fly but about how to deal with a specific problem for people who find flying without trim on their HOTAS a serious impediment to enjoyment of a game: which is what this flight simulation is, especially in your competitive MP environment. 

 

Anyway, you have your opinion, I have mine, they are obviously not going to change.  I expect that with Jason's resource constraints any plane specific control scheme for FC/BoX is not going to happen, so the discussion is probably moot anyway. People who want pseudo trim - or just to reduce the force needed to hold the stick forwards - will find a way to do it if they really want to.

 

 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

This is not about my preferences of how to fly but about how to deal with a specific problem for people who find flying without trim on their HOTAS a serious impediment to enjoyment of a game: which is what this flight simulation is, especially in your competitive MP environment. 

 

Sorry man, but if somebody finds a  "serious impediment to enjoyment of a game", because they have to actually hold the nose down manually like they would have to in the real aircraft, then maybe they should reconsider their choice of games.  Combat Flight Simulation is not for everyone, and it shouldn't try to be.

Edited July 23, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

Test flight, 300m, 50% fuel, 10% throttle, level flight with stick in neutral. Do you really think that something is not wrong? The deves did address this in ROF with control-offsets.

We should have control-offsets in FC too.

[Zooropa_Fly]

If pre-flight offsets were a reality, then they should be in-game also.

Some consumer sticks are quite heavily spring loaded so holding them forward for extended periods will be a pain.

I have to say my current stick (virpil) is quite loose so it's not a problem for me, but I'm glad I'm not still using the Warty.

It could also serve as a lesson not to be flying around at 100% throttle all the time (though the Dr1 just about still points up the way when it's floating).

 

I don't think the addition of FC1 to the BoX family is going to ruin the WW2 experience for anyone, so it's probably not worth worrying about.

 

 

[unreasonable]

9 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Test flight, 300m, 50% fuel, 10% throttle, level flight with stick in neutral. Do you really think that something is not wrong? The deves did address this in ROF with control-offsets.

We should have control-offsets in FC too.

 

Much of that might just go away if the developers adjust the tail-plane incidence as per Chill31's recommendation. Probably much simpler to program as well, although as usual there might be some unanticipated consequences to the rest of the model making it difficult.

[Guest deleted@83466]

8 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Test flight, 300m, 50% fuel, 10% throttle, level flight with stick in neutral. Do you really think that something is not wrong? The deves did address this in ROF with control-offsets.

We should have control-offsets in FC too.

 

As SYN_Haash has pointed out, there is a process by which to lobby for flight model changes.  Gather convincing information (Chill31, with his replica DR1, can be a very valuable and unique resource) and submit it.  Unlike Rise of Flight, IL-2 is in active development, and flight model changes do happen, provided proper and factual information exists to justify them.

 

You have to keep in mind that IL-2 is a comprehensive system, which incorporates a lot more than just the 2 early access aircraft from FC.  I just counted 37 other aircraft.  There is no need for me to repeat over and over again why I think control-offsets are a bad idea, but I do just want to re-emphasize how changes to the current joystick calibration capabilities have farther reaching consequences than just being able to correct something undesireable in the DR-1.  FC is not a standalone game, and so when you propose changes to the system, you have to consider the bigger picture.

[HiIIBiIIy]

Dude if you are such a purest, why not advocate for removal of the "S" curves and techno-chat too, both give a unfair advantage for people that uses them? 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Just now, HiIIBiIIy said:

Dude if you are such a purest, why not advocate for removal of the "S" curves and techno-chat too, both give a unfair advantage for people that uses them? 

 

I don't look at things in black and white.  There are degrees.

[HiIIBiIIy]

So what shade of gray is control-offsets for WW1 planes? 

[Guest deleted@83466]

 

Quote

So what shade of gray is control-offsets for WW1 planes? 

It's a shade of grey that gets too dark for my liking, because those aircraft, like any others, have their own quirks and essential character, and make specific demands on the pilot flying them.  And the way it works, it's hard for me to imagine that capabilities for control offsets would only be provided for WW1 aircraft, but not WW2 aircraft, because FC now co-exists with all the rest.   As I said, you can have certain concessions to playability, but it's appropriate to draw the line somewhere so that the game fundamentally retains it's character as a flight simulator.  You haven't even been here for a week.  When I came in to the IL-2 system, I adapted to it.  I didn't come in, and with no knowledge of the bigger picture, start immediately demanding changes from the developers to make it more to my liking, or to make it more like something else.  If you want everything to be just like it was in Rise of Flight, so that you don't have to learn anything new or change your way of doing anything from what it was before, why are you here? 

Edited July 23, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

21 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

It's a shade of grey that gets too dark for my liking.  And the way it works, it's hard for me to imagine that capabilities for control offsets would only be provided for WW1 aircraft, but not WW2 aircraft, because FC now co-exists with all the rest.   As I said, you can have certain concessions to playability, but it's appropriate to draw the line somewhere so that the game fundamentally retains it's character as a flight simulator.  You haven't even been here for a week.  When I came in to the IL-2 system, I adapted to it.  I didn't come in, and with no knowledge of the bigger picture, start immediately demanding changes from the developers to make it more to my liking, or to make it more like something else.  If you want everything to be just like it was in Rise of Flight, so that you don't have to learn anything new or change your way of doing anything from what it was before, why are you here? 

WOW! I do wish FC was stand-alone.

Edited July 23, 2018 by HiIIBiIIy

[yaan98]

51 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

Test flight, 300m, 50% fuel, 10% throttle, level flight with stick in neutral. Do you really think that something is not wrong? The deves did address this in ROF with control-offsets.

We should have control-offsets in FC too.

 

If you want to fly DR1 historically accurate, then 10% throttle was not possible.

 

Le Rhone: Fine fuel adj., and air control (not linked, so any change in throttle setting also requires a change in mixture setting, and the mixture also needs to be leaned as altitude increases). Engine power range from 50% - 100%, below 50% it will cut out. Has a blip-switch.

[HiIIBiIIy]

9 minutes ago, yaan98 said:

 

If you want to fly DR1 historically accurate, then 10% throttle was not possible.

 

Le Rhone: Fine fuel adj., and air control (not linked, so any change in throttle setting also requires a change in mixture setting, and the mixture also needs to be leaned as altitude increases). Engine power range from 50% - 100%, below 50% it will cut out. Has a blip-switch.

I was pointing out at the point level flight with neutral stick with auto-mixture on.

And I agree that with a throttle change a mixture change is necessary.

Edited July 23, 2018 by HiIIBiIIy

[unreasonable]

On 7/23/2018 at 11:45 PM, yaan98 said:

 

If you want to fly DR1 historically accurate, then 10% throttle was not possible.

 

Le Rhone: Fine fuel adj., and air control (not linked, so any change in throttle setting also requires a change in mixture setting, and the mixture also needs to be leaned as altitude increases). Engine power range from 50% - 100%, below 50% it will cut out. Has a blip-switch.

 

 i imagine that he means that the throttle lever is advanced 10% of it's travel, which gives about 800rpm for the FC Dr.1 if the fine adjustment has been set to optimize rpm, and the Dr.1 will fly level hands off. No idea if that is right or wrong, but 10% of the throttle travel =/= 10% of the thrust.  You can get the rpm down to about 700 with zero throttle and optimum fine adjustment, and then fiddling with the latter can reduce to about 600 before it starts wanting to cut.

Edited July 26, 2018 by unreasonable
too many zeros ;)

[US103_Hunter]

Real men fly without curves! ? No unhistorical trims or curves please!

[yaan98]

5 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

 i imagine that he means that the throttle lever is advanced 10% of it's travel, which gives about 8,000rpm for the FC Dr.1 if the fine adjustment has been set to optimize rpm, and the Dr.1 will fly level hands off. No idea if that is right or wrong, but 10% of the throttle travel =/= 10% of the thrust.  You can get the rpm down to about 7,000 with zero throttle and optimum fine adjustment, and then fiddling with the latter can reduce to about 6,000 before it starts wanting to cut.

 

6,000 rpms seems a bit high. See post in previous thread of DR1 that I made.

 

Also, pilots were cautioned to use fine adjustment to keep engine running at speeds of 600 rpm-1200 rpm.

 

 

[J2_Trupobaw]

I guess it's my moment to gloat that, as FFB stick user, I've never had a need to use any curves :). 

[HagarTheHorrible]

Is part of the problem to do with, if you have to hold forward pressure,  you have to come back through the center with potential uneaven spring pressure and possible dead/dampened zone, making for a less than fluid control response ?  Presumably if all aircraft flew this way then setting your joystick up outside the program is sensible , but if you have to adjust it, outside the game, every time you swap aircraft it would be problematic.

[J2_Trupobaw]

Quote

Is part of the problem to do with, if you have to hold forward pressure,  you have to come back through the center with potential uneaven spring pressure and possible dead/dampened zone, making for a less than fluid control response ? 

Digression - Plank has resolved this problem nicely in his DIY joystick... no springs, the column  continued below axis and ended in counterweight,  which applied constant centering force, much like counterweights on cranes and ailerons. Of course, I can't imagine placing that stick on desk and I imagine pilot could hit himself with counterweight during negative-G dive  ... but it was also very, very smooth.

Edited July 24, 2018 by J2_Trupobaw

[TG-55Panthercules]

2 hours ago, J2_Trupobaw said:

I guess it's my moment to gloat that, as FFB stick user, I've never had a need to use any curves :). 

 

My experience as well - now if we could just convince the hardware makers to start offering good FFB sticks again we would be all set.

[yaan98]

I had a few different types of FFB sticks in the past (Logitech/MFFB/Spider), but wasn't sure if the vibrations they produced were true representation or just a gimmick. I ended up getting buttkicker instead and turned out to be a good thing. Unfortunately, the motor got fried and now I'm looking to get a similar or better replacement.

[NO.20_W_M_Thomson]

MFFB vibration if that's what you call it is not a gimmick, If only it had more force than what we get now. I don't feel any vibration but I get more of a shake when in a stall. And in high G's the force gets heavier but not anywhere I'd like it to be.  

Since using the MFFB I have never played with the curves. Even with my ch pedals. For me I like full control of the plane. I can understand playing with the curves if your joystick has problems, Spring has worn out or pots are worn and such.   

[JGr2/J46_Sturm]

For me the constant input from the stick adds to the realism. I really like that. I hear people discuss how the realism adds to the enjoyment but then discuss how to set curves to compensate in order to fly better, get more kills as to improve the streak. I never flew with curves for a long time. I rarely shot anyone down and was shot down a lot. One day someone said I can improve the enjoyment by setting my curves. I did this and sure I did get more kills but for me the enjoyment was hindered a bit because now I was intent to get the kill and the enjoyment try to operate a WWI crate in full real was diminished. In part I sacrificed the enjoyment I got trying to manipulate the craft in full real ( no modifications or curves ) while trying to shoot someone down. FC for me is a pleasant experience. Sure it is harder but for me but the kill is less important than the experience I get from a full real sim. I am not a good pilot in full real by comparison to other pilots or pilots who use all the tech they can in order to give them the advantage but I really enjoy the experience. Everyone has his or her own way that makes them enjoy a flight sim. Some like to manipulate the curves to give them the edge while other enjoys the immersion of full real. There is no right or wrong way just do what makes you feel good. My hat is off to the team of 1c and 777 for their efforts in order to create a sim that is as real as possible while also adding features that allow others who do not want full real to tweak their responses. Also to Chill 31 for his input that really inspires people who want full real sims. Also to people like Plank who took things he had lying around and created rudder pedals. Plank challenged himself set to work and accomplished his task. Sure he could have taken the easy way and bought some but he chose to make them. I think FC has the same type of challenges. I don't know Plank or if he uses curves but I do know he challenged himself and succeeded as many people do who flies flight sims in full real. I guess the bottom line is HAVE FUN!

[Zooropa_Fly]

You really don't want to see some of our Planky's curves

[JGr2/J5_Klugermann]

lol