Fokker DR1 forward stick to keep level..

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yes he doesn't say that  but pitching up is consequence of elevator position.

[unreasonable]

21 minutes ago, 307_Tomcat said:

Yes he doesn't say that  but pitching up is consequence of elevator position.

 

No it is not.  It is a consequence of the balance of the aircraft flying level at a pre-determined height, speed and atmosphere, with no pressure on the stick. (At least that is my understanding of AnP's post and how I think it is done: if any of the engineers thinks I have that wrong please correct me). 

 

The pitching up arises because the medium altitude/low speed balance chosen allows the plane to fly with little stick pressure at high altitudes as the throttle is gradually opened. Fly faster and lower than that point and you pitch up.   If you chose a low altitude/high speed balance, the plane would pitch down at lower speeds and higher altitude without constant stick back pressure, which is highly undesirable for anyone who wants to cruise at altitude for long periods.  I think it is particularly an issue with the Dr.1 since the plane is so short.

 

Chill's observation is that the elevator appears to be down slightly more in the RoF/FC version than in his plane for similar conditions of flight.  That would appear to mean that the FC Dr.1 is balanced to be a little more tail heavy than Chill's. As AnP says, he just does not know exactly how WW1 pilots balanced, and I do not suppose that Chill has to cruise at 5-6km for over an hour. 

 

The problem here is that if you balance the Dr.1 to make it easy on the stick at the low altitudes of most MP furballs, it will become very difficult for anyone to use it at altitude.  

 

Personally I am all for making things so that people can enjoy their flying, and if they never chose to get above 1km that is no concern of mine. I would, however, be mighty fed up if the Dr.1 was balanced so that it was easy to fly in low level MP furballs and impossible to fly in Career SP or even if high altitude QM dogfights, so if it is adjusted I hope that is only very slightly. 

 

 

 

  

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

Yes but the new balance would correct elevator position (in other words influence it). All evidence of diffrence from real DR1  is in elevator position during level flight.

Edited August 25, 2018 by 307_Tomcat

[HagarTheHorrible]

6 hours ago, unreasonable said:

Terminal velocity - although I do not know what it is since the anemometer is at the stop.   You can bunt to dive vertically - the prop will stop fairly soon. There is then enough forwards elevator authority left over to pull out of the dive by pushing the nose forwards until you are fully inverted and then rolling out.

 

Wouldn't fancy pushing through to inverted in a DR1, it seems like it would be just asking for the fabric on the top wing to say "bye, bye Gontermann" from low pressure void/differential ( a little ironic, given that it is normally high pressure, that one imagines,  seems to cause trouble).

 

I wonder how quickly the "blipped" propeller starts to act like an anchor, rather than a device for creating thrust or a pretty (useless) windmill ?

 

What  is it in a rotary that fails if the engine over speeds ?

 

I always thought of the DR1 as a light nosed, low powered, pitch unstable, high lift type of aircraft.  Because of that I tended to think, and still do, that the DR1 would have quickly found it difficult to hold a steady, fast dive, towards a diving opponent.  We often hear the " climbs like a monkey" quote, best climb is not best speed so it's optimum speed/lift point is somewhat lower than it's best speed anything over best climb, which evidently it does very well is going to require increasing forward elevator to counteract increased lift, if trying to aim at a fixed point, how quickly does that forward elevator control authority run out ?

 

How much physical strength does the pilot require to hold the controller at it's for most position with increased speed and is that affected by the physical effort/fatigue needed to hold the aircraft flying level, for the mission length, at top speed rather than cruise speed ?

[HiIIBiIIy]

22 hours ago, unreasonable said:

With the current configuration I get hands off level flight at 1100rpm - just a fraction below full power - at about 5.7km altitude.

At  3 km I can achieve almost level flight with 15% throttle (7500 rpm) and 100% fuel load. Is this right, I think not.

 

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

My contention is that if you were regularly flying 2 hour patrols at 5-6 km altitude

If you flying at that altitude for 2 hours you would be dead,( hypoxia )

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

At  3 km I can achieve almost level flight with 15% throttle (7500 rpm) and 100% fuel load. Is this right, I think not.

 

If you flying at that altitude for 2 hours you would be dead,( hypoxia )

 

The patrol length of two hours is well documented - see Lee's book "No Parachute", as is the maximum height: up to 20,000ft in Pups and usually over 15,000ft. The patrol length could well include the climb - but not the return trip according to Lee IIRC. It would no doubt sometimes include descents to lower altitudes.  However you look at it,  the time spent at high altitude was often considerable: and then they needed to be able to fight up there as well.

 

My rough tests for balance done continuously starting with a full load on take off are as follows.  I might have been climbing/descending very slowly since I was looking at the altimeter every minute or so and when I could no longer see an increase between readings I noted the figures using the cockpit instruments. Then I increased rpm by 100 and ascended to the next point.  No doubt someone could be more precise using the HUD.

 

rpm      height km    speed (anemometer)

800           0.2                95

900           2.2             105

1000         3.8             110

1100         5.7             128

1140         6.2             130

 

I cannot replicate your results hands off  (I assume you mean 750rpm), I was always descending (slowly) at this rpm.  If you mean that you can fly level at those settings with slight back pressure: so what? That just means that you are still above stall speed.   The only complication I can think of is the stick configuration: especially if you are not using FFB where your stick centers may not be exactly where mine (FFB G940) is centered.     

 

 

8 hours ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Wouldn't fancy pushing through to inverted in a DR1, it seems like it would be just asking for the fabric on the top wing to say "bye, bye Gontermann" from low pressure void/differential ( a little ironic, given that it is normally high pressure, that one imagines,  seems to cause trouble).

 

I wonder how quickly the "blipped" propeller starts to act like an anchor, rather than a device for creating thrust or a pretty (useless) windmill ?

 

What  is it in a rotary that fails if the engine over speeds ?

 

I always thought of the DR1 as a light nosed, low powered, pitch unstable, high lift type of aircraft.  Because of that I tended to think, and still do, that the DR1 would have quickly found it difficult to hold a steady, fast dive, towards a diving opponent.  We often hear the " climbs like a monkey" quote, best climb is not best speed so it's optimum speed/lift point is somewhat lower than it's best speed anything over best climb, which evidently it does very well is going to require increasing forward elevator to counteract increased lift, if trying to aim at a fixed point, how quickly does that forward elevator control authority run out ?

 

How much physical strength does the pilot require to hold the controller at it's for most position with increased speed and is that affected by the physical effort/fatigue needed to hold the aircraft flying level, for the mission length, at top speed rather than cruise speed ?

 

FC Dr.1 props stop windmilling very quickly and becomes a dead weight - they are pretty hard to get started again although I did manage it once in a dive by a series of very quick rolls.   I doubt that was a RL practice, somehow.  

 

If you want to dive fast for a considerable period (say to escape) get the plane pointing down and then push nose down enough so that you have no lift - which you get by reducing the AoA of your wings to zero. That is what I did to dive vertically (to test terminal velocity vs prop stopping as in your previous question).  The inverted pull out was just to demonstrate the elevator authority: only a lunatic would do that for real, if it is even humanly possible.  

 

While I agree that it might be harder to line up a diving attack in the rotaries than the heavier, more stable on-lines, the higher you are the easier it would be, since the higher you are the less forwards pressure you need for level flight.

[Cynic_Al]

This is all getting a bit too [insert unusable word here]. Why don't we just ask for an adjustable rubber bungee anchored between the stick and instrument panel?

[1./KG4_OldJames]

After reading the review by a person who actually owns and flys a real DR1,  I think I would rather keep it as it is modelled. Here for the Sim, not the arcade.

[US103_Baer]

People who don't run short, spring centred joysticks shouldn't comment for those that do. Get a cheap Logitech 3d extreme and try it. Then comment. Or are we all supposed to get ffb or expensive extended sticks because 'Sim Realism'?

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

50 minutes ago, US103_Baer said:

People who don't run short, spring centred joysticks shouldn't comment for those that do. Get a cheap Logitech 3d extreme and try it. Then comment. Or are we all supposed to get ffb or expensive extended sticks because 'Sim Realism'?

 

 

Ever thought that maybe the effort of holding the stick forward is maybe closer to reality.   

 

I'm not saying it definitely is, it's just a thought.

 

Despite Chill 33 saying that forward stick is necessary to fly level, it might be helpful if there was a definite flying, no stick input, apart from general flying correction for a directionally unstable aircraft, flight speed/altitude.  It might vary slightly depending on temp/pressure but as a general rule of thumb flying at, for example, a cruise speed of 85 at 10,000 ft. Players have to make a choice between comfort or tactical advantage.  Just to throw a bone to short, spring-loaded, joystick players ( the joysticks, that is, not the players)

[J2_Bidu]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

People who don't run short, spring centred joysticks shouldn't comment for those that do. Get a cheap Logitech 3d extreme and try it. Then comment. Or are we all supposed to get ffb or expensive extended sticks because 'Sim Realism'?

 

 

Same argument could be used in favor of mouse control. I think the "more perfect" controls should be supported the best, and the others should be accommodated as best as possible, but without loss to the ideal solution. Is there no way to get out of this problem by adjusting response curves?

 

Please don't interpret me as a "control elitist". I just think we want to get things as "real" as possible, in a reasonable and balanced way for everyone. But better controls should provide a better experience.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, US103_Baer said:

People who don't run short, spring centred joysticks shouldn't comment for those that do. Get a cheap Logitech 3d extreme and try it. Then comment. Or are we all supposed to get ffb or expensive extended sticks because 'Sim Realism'?

 

 

 They should comment - on how the sim behaves for those with the same kind of FFB sticks on which the planes were balanced. See AnPetrovich's thread linked earlier -  it is just about comprehensible for an English speaker using google translate, as long as you already know what is being discussed. 

 

And even for those without, we have seen people saying that level flight requires full forwards stick. I call BS on this: unless someone can show a video or track this as far as I am concerned this is just hysterical exaggeration by people used to WW2 aircraft with trim and no knowledge of how WW1 planes were used: or by people who have got used to the RoF elevator offsets and cannot cope without them.   For the record - I wish the control offsets could be introduced to FC and then all this nonsense might stop.

 

If you balance the plane to suit those with short spring centered joysticks who wish to fly around at under 1,000m at full speed without forwards pressure, you will make the plane very difficult to fly and fight for anyone who wants to fly SP patrols at realistic heights.  So let's not pretend that this is about just one set of evil elitists wishing to impose their ways on everyone. (edit - there are at least two sets of evil elitists involved   ) 

 

 

1 hour ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

 

Despite Chill 33 saying that forward stick is necessary to fly level, it might be helpful if there was a definite flying, no stick input, apart from general flying correction for a directionally unstable aircraft, flight speed/altitude.  It might vary slightly depending on temp/pressure but as a general rule of thumb flying at, for example, a cruise speed of 85 at 10,000 ft. Players have to make a choice between comfort or tactical advantage.  Just to throw a bone to short, spring-loaded, joystick players ( the joysticks, that is, not the players)

 

Hagar, there already is. I posted my estimates on what those were earlier.  For instance 1000rpm at about 3.8 km with about 105kph on the anemometer: no forwards pressure required on a G940.  The problem arises purely because people expect to be able to fly, without much forwards pressure, very fast and very low in a plane that had to be able to cruise at 15,000-20,000 ft. 

 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by unreasonable

[Guest deleted@83466]

7 hours ago, 1./KG4_OldJames said:

 Here for the Sim, not the arcade.

 

Couldn't have said it better.

 

3 hours ago, Bidu said:

 

 Is there no way to get out of this problem by adjusting response curves?

 

 

 

What problem?  The developers have made a wonderful rendition of the Dr.1, that is said to fly very much like a real Dr.I.  The only "problem" I see is that a handful of casual gamers really don't like the Dr.I's actual flying characteristics and now suggest that easy-mode control overrides be introduced.  Maybe they would have preferred it if the developers had instead modelled the much-less-known Dr.I-B, the worlds first Fly-By-Wire aircraft, which arrived too late to see action in this universe (but saw extensive action in the one in which MvR sported an impressive Fu Manchu).

 

The only way I personally would ever get on board with input offsets like Rise of Flight has, would be if it were only possible to use them under the Piloting Assistance->Simplified Controls option of the Realism Settings menu, and therefore could be excluded by multiplayer server operators.  That's really where control offsets belong, imo.

Edited August 26, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[TWC_Ace]

I have Gladiator pro MK1 with medium springs and yes its perfect for WW2 planes....but yeah its kinda tiresome to use almost entire time full stick forward with that stick when im in DR1. I guess with some plastic crap with light springs it would be no prob. But still I dont get how your calling realism on that matter while we have so many things in sim simplified. Its kinda funny. Why we wouldnt have possibility at least to set "default" level trim with curves. Anyways we need to dance with pedals and stick all the time in WW1 planes more than we need in WW2 planes. 

And another note...not everybody here are "hardcore simmers" and I guess that such case with rotary planes will fend off not so serious simmers from FC.

[ZachariasX]

It‘s early access in its earliest phase. Better to complain about not having something when you know what will be included once it is completed. Personally, I miss the Camel more than the curves menu.

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 hour ago, blackram said:

I have Gladiator pro MK1 with medium springs and yes its perfect for WW2 planes....but yeah its kinda tiresome to use almost entire time full stick forward with that stick when im in DR1. I guess with some plastic crap with light springs it would be no prob. But still I dont get how your calling realism on that matter while we have so many things in sim simplified. Its kinda funny. Why we wouldnt have possibility at least to set "default" level trim with curves. Anyways we need to dance with pedals and stick all the time in WW1 planes more than we need in WW2 planes. 

And another note...not everybody here are "hardcore simmers" and I guess that such case with rotary planes will fend off not so serious simmers from FC.

 

You use flawed logic.  It's the old "some things are simplified, so why not simplify this too..."

 

If the joystick you 're using is too tiresome to use, then either consider mounting it differently or get one with wimpier springs.  Up until now, there are like 40 other planes in the IL-2 Great Battles universe, almost all of which have trim operated by the pilot, except for the I-16...that's part of the plane and one of the things that makes it what it is.  Some have only elevator trim, some have rudder and aileron trim, some don't and the ones that don't you have to park your foot on the rudder at times to prevent a crab, depending on your speed...it's actually part of the skillset of flying the aircraft to it's limits...So now you've got the Dr.I and the Spad too, which like the Rata in BoM,  have no trim at all.  Learn to deal with it, man!  Maybe you just decide that you don't like the Dr.I because it's too tail heavy for you, so you prefer to fly something else....like an Se5 or a 1 1/2 Strutter that have stabilizer trim.  I don't think the well-established control input scheme of IL-2 should have to change now just because they've introduced a few more trimless aircraft that are less pleasurable to fly than their more advanced counterparts 25 years down the line.

 

Like I said, if you want to lobby the developers for input offsets, fine, but these things should definitely go under the Simplified Controls realism option, because Simplified controls are what you are asking for.

Edited August 26, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[TWC_Ace]

1 hour ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

You use flawed logic.  It's the old "some things are simplified, so why not simplify this too..."

 

If the joystick you 're using is too tiresome to use, then either consider mounting it differently or get one with wimpier springs.  Up until now, there are like 40 other planes in the IL-2 Great Battles universe, almost all of which have trim operated by the pilot, except for the I-16...that's part of the plane and one of the things that makes it what it is.  Some have only elevator trim, some have rudder and aileron trim, some don't and the ones that don't you have to park your foot on the rudder at times to prevent a crab, depending on your speed...it's actually part of the skillset of flying the aircraft to it's limits...So now you've got the Dr.I and the Spad too, which like the Rata in BoM,  have no trim at all.  Learn to deal with it, man!  Maybe you just decide that you don't like the Dr.I because it's too tail heavy for you, so you prefer to fly something else....like an Se5 or a 1 1/2 Strutter that have stabilizer trim.  I don't think the well-established control input scheme of IL-2 should have to change now just because they've introduced a few more trimless aircraft that are less pleasurable to fly than their more advanced counterparts 25 years down the line.

 

Like I said, if you want to lobby the developers for input offsets, fine, but these things should definitely go under the Simplified Controls realism option, because Simplified controls are what you are asking for.

Im not complaining just giving my opinion. I like this game. I know FC is still WIP.

Tell me then. Why I can fly Spad13 straight forward level with neutral joystick position? It was like that in RL?

BTW If everybody agree that it is correct approach and devs think its ok, then I can accept that.

 

camon

Edited August 26, 2018 by blackram

[Zooropa_Fly]

I go back to the point that WW1 pilots could have their elevators offset before a flight.

Therefore it's 100% realistic to be able to do this to an extent in-game, without necessarily being able to do it in-flight.

Personally I'm not bothered either way.

 

13 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

It‘s early access in its earliest phase. Better to complain about not having something when you know what will be included once it is completed. Personally, I miss the Camel more than the curves menu.

 

So do I, but when the Camel arrives...

[Guest deleted@83466]

10 hours ago, Zooropa_Fly said:

I go back to the point that WW1 pilots could have their elevators offset before a flight.

Therefore it's 100% realistic to be able to do this to an extent in-game, without necessarily being able to do it in-flight.

 

 

I have questions regarding the premise of your argument:  "I go back to the point that WW1 pilots could have their elevators offset before a flight." Is that so? Then provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a plane by plane basis, what could be rigged, modified, adjusted, altered, duct taped, or MacGyvered by the ground crew, and to what "an extent" it would be appropriate to provide  joystick input offsets, or any other facility, to represent this.   When you want a change to the game, and you say something is "100% realistic",  then I think you are going to have to qualify it.  For example, if it was common and practical in the field for a pilot to just say to his rigger, "A little more nose heavy this time, Geoffrey, old sport" before any given flight, with a particular model of aircraft, and the guy could just tweak some things, tighten some cables, turn some screws, or whatever, please elaborate. 

Edited August 27, 2018 by SeaSerpent
clarification

[TWC_Ace]

5 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I have questions regarding the premise of your argument:  "I go back to the point that WW1 pilots could have their elevators offset before a flight." Is that so? Then provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a plane by plane basis, what could be rigged, modified, adjusted, altered, duct taped, or MacGyvered by the ground crew, and to what "an extent" it would be appropriate to provide  joystick input offsets, or any other facility, to represent this.   When you want a change to the game, and you say something is "100% realistic",  then I think you are going to have to qualify it.  For example, if it was common and practical in the field for a pilot to just say to his rigger, "A little more nose heavy this time, Geoffrey, old sport" before any given flight, with a particular model of aircraft, and the guy could just tweak some things, tighten some cables, turn some screws, or whatever, please elaborate. 

 

Listen pal, provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a rotary plane by rotary plane basis, that pilots were forced to use constant stick forward to fly straight their planes with rotary engines....

Edited August 27, 2018 by blackram

[Guest deleted@83466]

11 minutes ago, blackram said:

 

Listen pal, provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a rotary plane by rotary plane basis, that pilots were forced to use constant stick forward to fly straight their planes with rotary engines....

 

The developers modelled the CG and the incidence of the tailplane based on their research and knowledge of aeronautical engineering.  I'm not the one questioning their flight modelling, and I'm not demanding changes or workarounds to accomodate me, so there really is no burden on me to provide *anything*, pal.  However, in the particular case of the Dr.I we already have a flight report/comparison from a guy that has a replica Dr.I, and it is rather favorable towards the FC Dr.I as modelled.  So go read that....pal

[1PL-Husar-1Esk]

2 hours ago, blackram said:

 

Listen pal, provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a rotary plane by rotary plane basis, that pilots were forced to use constant stick forward to fly straight their planes with rotary engines....

About Dr1 

https://combatace.com/forums/topic/44196-flying-the-old-planes-part-6-fokker-dr1/

http://www.theaerodrome.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23067

[Zooropa_Fly]

7 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

I have questions regarding the premise of your argument:  "I go back to the point that WW1 pilots could have their elevators offset before a flight." Is that so? Then provide the documentation that demonstrates, on a plane by plane basis, what could be rigged, modified, adjusted, altered, duct taped, or MacGyvered by the ground crew, and to what "an extent" it would be appropriate to provide  joystick input offsets, or any other facility, to represent this.   When you want a change to the game, and you say something is "100% realistic",  then I think you are going to have to qualify it.  For example, if it was common and practical in the field for a pilot to just say to his rigger, "A little more nose heavy this time, Geoffrey, old sport" before any given flight, with a particular model of aircraft, and the guy could just tweak some things, tighten some cables, turn some screws, or whatever, please elaborate. 

 

I don't know this for certain, I'm going on what others have said in the past. Seems perfectly feasible and logical to me, but if it wasn't done it wasn't done.

Maybe someone will contribute some more on this.. haven't seen Trupo for a while, he'll know !

[J5_Gamecock]

Found THIS online, here is a paragraph from the page...

 

     The Triplane tends to fly tail heavy and increasing speed requires lots of forward stick to hold the nose down~ It appears as if the effective center of drag is above the thrust line so the faster you go the more elevator correction is needed to hold the nose down. This is somewhat of an explanation for the familiar "tuck" position of the Triplane at high speed. The horizontal stabilizer is rigged at a plus 90 (leading edge high) but even with this forward stick pressure is needed as speed increases. The high lift wing airfoil shape really wants to pull the plane up. All the wings are rigged at 11/20 angle of incidence.

 

 The DR1,(and Camel), was always tail heavy in ROF.  It does require more forward stick than most other aircraft.  It can be a nuisance, (and yes ZF.. I have a Warthog ?)  but it's not a deal breaker IMO. There are an awful lot of guys who got very, very good with it. 

 

  As for curves... I never really used them, but I see no problem with having them. They won't make a particular AC do something it couldn't... they just make it feel different to the guy who is using them, so any loss of "realism" would be his and not the community at large..  

 

  

 

  

Edited August 28, 2018 by J5_Gamecock

[Guest deleted@83466]

33 minutes ago, J5_Gamecock said:

?

 

  As for curves... I never really used them, but I see no problem with having them. They won't make a particular AC do something it couldn't... they just make it feel different to the guy who is using them, so any loss of "realism" would be his and not the community at large..  

 

  

 

 

The issue isn't so much curves themselves, but joystick offsets to bias your controls in order to provide input that you aren't actually making.  IL-2 has curves but not offsets.  I used joystick offsets "faux trim" for every plane in Rise of Flight, and I know that it gave me an advantage over those who weren't using them because it decreased my workload by making my aircraft easier to fly.  I knew that I was compromising realism, but in multiplayer I figured if I was going to come up against a guy who was using them, then I should use them too.  I'm so glad they're gone from Il-2.   As I've said for the zillionth time, if players want this, aim for getting it under the simplified controls portion of the realism option where it can be used in the fast food servers if that's desireable, but excluded from the ones that care about maximizing simulation value.

 

Edited August 28, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

Before this gets out of hand everyone should read https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/2564-about-wrong-elevator-position-and-pitch-sensitive/page-1?hl=forward stick

[Atomic_Spaniel]

On 8/28/2018 at 3:00 AM, HiIIBiIIy said:

Before this gets out of hand everyone should read https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/2564-about-wrong-elevator-position-and-pitch-sensitive/page-1?hl=forward stick

 

For clarity, there are actually two separate reasons that require "stick forward" when flying some aircraft in RoF or FC. One good, one bad.

 

1. Many real WWI aircraft had a nose-up pitch at higher power settings and the pilot just had to push forward to hold the nose down. Some aircraft (SE5a, Dolphin etc) had elevator trim to manage this, but many did not. We definitely want to reproduce this behaviour in the game because it's part of the character of the real aircraft.

 

2. 1C-777's rather literal-minded 1:1 way of mapping spring-centred PC joysticks to the joystick of the virtual aircraft can cause an additional element of nose-up pitching in the PC game that was not present in the real aircraft. For example, the real SE5a had about twice as much stick movement backwards from the usual "level flight" position as it did movement forwards. When trimmed correctly, the real aircraft would require no sustained forward or backward stick pressure to maintain level flight. A force-feedback PC game stick can reproduce this quite well and the RoF SE5a did just that with an FF stick. Unfortunately,  because spring-centred sticks have symmetrical movement forward and back, for an aircraft like the SE5a the PC stick's springs are trying to push the stick towards a position that actually gives significant upward elevator deflection, resulting in the perception of a strong nose-up pitch that has nothing at all to do with the real aircraft and is simply an unwanted consequence of 777's simple linear way of mapping the PC stick position to the virtual aircraft stick position. The RoF SE5a was introduced to the game before the ability to adjust curve settings and elevator trim (IIRC) so there were many complaints that with a spring-centred PC stick, when released, the elevators were deflected significantly upwards and that the RoF aircraft thus required a very significant forward pressure just to maintain level flight. IMO, we don't want this effect in the game at all, and using response curves to get rid of it is quite OK as far as I am concerned. The loss of 1:1 mapping of PC stick position to virtual aircraft stick position is more than compensated for by a better reproduction of the "feel" of the real aircraft.

 

Cheers,

 

Nick

 

 

[JG4_Deciman]

Hi there

 

There are 2 ways to view that behaviour:

The first one is the behaviour of any plane.
If it's climbing, diving or banking depends on
- actual speed through the air
- actual position of the elevator / rudder / aileron
- angle of the wings and elevators (fixed angle)

and as most of the ww1 planes had no in flight trim there was no way to change the fixed settings,
so only rudders / elevators and speed are options to change anything there.

The second is:
There planes were steered by direct wire connections to rudders / elevators
And I guess any pilot could ask his mechanig to change the setting of there connections

(more up/down/löeft/right rudders when stick is in centered position)
That was simulated in RoF by the option to set individual curves for each plane.

But it's also some kind of cheating...
The 'force' for the pilot to keep the stick in centered position aftere these changes would be the same
as moving the stick to the position, where the plane is flying staight and level.
But a joystick (with or without FFB) requires no force from the user to keep it in centered position
so that force isn't feeled by the user...

Deci

[beresford]

Don't forget that the real pilots had separate rudder pedals, which not all of us do. I find that when gripping the stick to permanently hold it forward I also twist it, which means I am flying around slewed. Not sure why the hard core wish to force everybody to fly like this, as long as you can choose not to use offsets everyone can be happy.

 

Next they will be insisting that we all wear oxygen-restricting masks to simulate hypoxia

Edited September 5, 2018 by beresford

[JG4_Deciman]

I've got pedals.
And comparing it to before (with a twist axis) it makes flying a lot mor realistic and easy.
But I agree that for pilots without pedals having to keep the stick pressed and twisted all the time
is a lot of work...

Deci

[Guest deleted@83466]

3 hours ago, beresford said:

Don't forget that the real pilots had separate rudder pedals, which not all of us do. I find that when gripping the stick to permanently hold it forward I also twist it, which means I am flying around slewed. Not sure why the hard core wish to force everybody to fly like this, as long as you can choose not to use offsets everyone can be happy.

 

Next they will be insisting that we all wear oxygen-restricting masks to simulate hypoxia

 

IMO fine, as long as it can be turned off in server settings, and thereby restricted to the "soft core" MP servers, so that you can minimize a multiplayer situation on more realism-oriented servers where some guys are flying easy-mode and some aren't....And no, not falling for your sarcastic false dichotomy.  There are degrees of realism.

Edited September 5, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[SharpeXB]

On 8/27/2018 at 9:00 PM, HiIIBiIIy said:

Before this gets out of hand everyone should read https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/2564-about-wrong-elevator-position-and-pitch-sensitive/page-1?hl=forward stick

Yes that’s a must read post on this subject. 

 

I do do hope we get custom response curves for IL-2 GB since it’s rather a must have for the WWI planes due to this reality. 

On 8/27/2018 at 8:47 PM, SeaSerpent said:

 

The issue isn't so much curves themselves, but joystick offsets to bias your controls in order to provide input that you aren't actually making.  IL-2 has curves but not offsets.  I used joystick offsets "faux trim" for every plane in Rise of Flight, and I know that it gave me an advantage over those who weren't using them because it decreased my workload by making my aircraft easier to fly.  I knew that I was compromising realism, but in multiplayer I figured if I was going to come up against a guy who was using them, then I should use them too.  I'm so glad they're gone from Il-2.   As I've said for the zillionth time, if players want this, aim for getting it under the simplified controls portion of the realism option where it can be used in the fast food servers if that's desireable, but excluded from the ones that care about maximizing simulation value.

 

The trouble is, if you read the above link on the subject. There is really no such thing as a “reaslistic” joystick control for the WWI planes except a full length force feedback stick. Which are not common. If you realistically desensitize your short table top stick with an “S” curve, then it also becomes necessary to shift the curve as well. Hence the need for the custom response settings. 

[Chill31]

As a long time flight sim enthusiast and airplane nut, I don't really get too wrapped up about having curves.  First and foremost, a flight sim should be fun.  I think allowing people to set curves helps achieve that.  For purists, keep it without curves.  In ROF, I haven't noticed a real gameplay advantage to using curves other than my hand not hurting.  With the stick extention on my Warthog, I fly without curves, since it reminds me more of flying the Dr.I.  My 2 cents.  Don't let this eat you up.

[SharpeXB]

2 hours ago, Chill31 said:

For purists, keep it without curves.

Even if you are a purist, going without the curve isn’t realistic either. Unless you could use a full length, floor mounted force feedback stick. A tabletop spring centered stick will be wrong for all the reasons stated in the link above. Going without curves on a small stick results in the aircraft being much more sensitive than reality. That applies to WWII as well except that you can trim the plane. Without the ability to trim the plane, an “S” curve won’t match the center of where you’re keeping the stick forward. So the pitch response needs to look something like this. 

 

[Guest deleted@83466]

Yeah, SharpeXB. that looks similar to what I used in RoF. 

 

Glad we don't have that ability in Il-2.  Makes a mockery of the simulation to be able to be able to offset like  that.

Edited October 6, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[ZachariasX]

7 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Makes a mockery of the simulation to be able to be able to offset like  that.

As much as a desktop joystick is a mockery of floor monted, real life controls.

 

As long as you „can turn it off“, there shouldn‘t be a problem. Unless you cannot find sleep over other people have a different sense of having fun. But then, curves are not the issue.

[Guest deleted@83466]

1 minute ago, ZachariasX said:

As much as a desktop joystick is a mockery of floor monted, real life controls.

 

As long as you „can turn it off“, there shouldn‘t be a problem. Unless you cannot find sleep over other people have a different sense of having fun. But then, curves are not the issue.

 

 

We played Rise of Flight in a competitive multiplayer envrionment.  I don't have a problem with curves so much, because stick length varies,  but the offsets I do have a prob with.  I realize how much a difference it makes to be able to provide artificial joystick inputs when you are diving in and lining up on an opponent, and being able to basically hold your joysick more or less centered, with minor corrections, because you've biased it that way.  I did it that way in RoF.  I wish, in retrospect, that I hadn't had that ability.  I'm 100% certain it gave me an advantage over those that didn't use offsets, perhaps those that were more purists than I was.  So where I'm coming from, is that nobody should get that ability, to keep it fair.  That's all.

[ZachariasX]

1 minute ago, SeaSerpent said:

We played Rise of Flight in a competitive multiplayer envrionment. 

This is indeed problmatic, as curves may indeed produce an uneven playing field. But server side locks of such options could take care of that I guess.

[SharpeXB]

6 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

Yeah, SharpeXB. that looks similar to what I used in RoF. 

 

Glad we don't have that ability in Il-2.  Makes a mockery of the simulation to be able to be able to offset like  that.

So it’s a mockery of simulation that we all don’t have full length force feedback sticks?

it seems you haven’t read this post. To understand stick behavior in flight sims you need to understand this:

https://riseofflight.com/forum/topic/2564-about-wrong-elevator-position-and-pitch-sensitive/?p=22055

Edited October 6, 2018 by SharpeXB

[Guest deleted@83466]

it seems you haven’t read this post. To understand stick behavior in flight sims you need to understand this:

 

Yeah, I read that whole thread when it was linked to several weeks ago.   I've flown the Rise of Flight aircraft both with offsets, and without;  with short joysticks, with extended joysticks; with joysticks that have stiff springs; with joysticks that are light to the touch; with joysticks that are sitting on a desk; with joysticks that are lowered, but offset to the side; with joysticks that are center mounted.  In past sims, long ago, I used a Force Feedback joystick for a time (Red Baron 2).  My conclusion about the gameyness of Rise of Flight style joystick offsets is unchanged, and in fact even strengthened when I read that thread.  I'm very happy with exactly what we've got currently in IL-2.

Edited October 6, 2018 by SeaSerpent