Pitch perfect ( assistance)

[HagarTheHorrible]

It appears that some people, maybe everyone, is struggling with having to apply forward pressure in the DR1. Without the help of the response curves in RoF this MIGHT be a problem.  I can't quite remember what the thoughts were when response curves were first introduced in RoF and if it was thought, by some, to be a bit of a cheat, robbing some of the aircraft of their character, if accepted as a necessary evil.

 

I wonder if a partial solution, that maybe retains some or most of the aircraft quirks, as envisioned by the developers, and something that might be simpler to understand by new or casual players is a pitch slider.

 

My notion is to have a simple slider, in the aircraft mods/skins/load out UI page that allows for neutral pitch to be set, just imagine a pitch trimmer but one that can only be set before flight (trim tabs).  This might allow for flying at a pitch neutral position depending on what the player finds most appropriate given joystick and aircraft speed for each aircraft.  Thus a player might set the slider that equates to no joystick input, for his or her joystick, when the chosen aircraft is flying at speed of,  for example, 100 mph (depending on joystick this might not be the same position on the slider as other players).  This would be set by trial and error to see what suits when playing the "quick missions"

 

 

Sensible thought or rubbish idea ?

 

Obviously some aircraft have a working pitch trimmer by design, although if it needs set at one extreme of it's axis just to fly level then it becomes less useful (DCS 109 ahem, ahem)

Edited July 22, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[BOO]

my understanding is that the RL aircraft required the pilot to apply forward stick and its a tiring aircraft to fly. As such my thoughts would be that its as much a part of flying the aircraft as its good points isn't it?

 

This said I would agree with the notion in support of those players who, for whatever reason, physically struggle (in general not a simple I want this plane tailored to me) but im not sure if that could realistically implemented fairly given the preponderance of players to gain every advantage they can especially in MP. Making it a SP only feature would perhaps seem the ideal but that doesn't help affected players who wish to fly it in MP I guess. 

 

Then again I would guess there are 3rd party programmes that shift the centre of x/y axis anyway and people will use them anyhow. 

 

Can of worms I guess. 

[unreasonable]

I have come down on the view that I want the realism embedded in the pilot in the game - and the plane in the game: but not in me.

 

Let people do what they want with their HOTAS trim: it does not affect the capabilities of the aeroplane, only the sensitivities of the message that the player sends his pilot avatar. Those of us who prefer to make a certain aspect of player experience correlate as closely as possible to that of the pilot can still do so. I probably would leave the Dr.1 forwards pressure: I find it part of the fun, but then I do not want 1:1 head movement. Others might make the reverse choices.

 

The idea of a level playing field in MP is ridiculous unless we all use the same hardware anyway. 

Edited July 22, 2018 by unreasonable

[ZachariasX]

As long as the pitch trim cannot be set in flight, I don‘t think having such even in „realistic“ settings. Think of it as rigging of the stabylo on the ground, something they were abolutely capable and free to do.

[HagarTheHorrible]

Neutral pitch would only be set according to joystick variation and, importantly, a given speed.  I'm pretty sure that by and large most aircraft would have been individually set to fly, fairly level, at a given speed and load out according to the pilots whim so in that regard, it could not be described as unrealistic, and just to be clear, it would not be adjustable in flight.

Edited July 22, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[unreasonable]

15 minutes ago, HagarTheHorrible said:

Neutral pitch would only be set according to joystick variation and, importantly, a given speed.  I'm pretty sure that by and large most aircraft would have been individually set to fly, fairly level, at a given speed and load out according to the pilots whim so in that regard, it could not be described as unrealistic, and just to be clear, it would not be adjustable in flight.

 

Not with a neutral stick: the requirement for forwards stick pressure for level flight is a perfectly well documented fact for several types. You would not want to trim that out in a real fighter/scout if it reduced your ability to turn quickly: which it would.

 

You are on much better ground with the argument that you want to trim your own stick so that the in-game pilot is exerting forwards pressure when you the player are neutral, simply because you want to. 

 

 

[HagarTheHorrible]

17 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

 

You are on much better ground with the argument that you want to trim your own stick so that the in-game pilot is exerting forwards pressure when you the player are neutral, simply because you want to. 

 

 

 

 

That would make sense.  

 

I assume pilots would set their own regimes, within limits, according to how they wanted an aircraft to fly at a given speed and weight and the riggers would do their best to comply and rig the aircraft accordingly.  Of course most pilots at the time probably didn't have the experience to know the possibilities or what to ask for and didn't live long enough to find out.

 

If I remember, the Camel was tail heavy to start with, but about right when patrolling later on during the flight.

Edited July 22, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[Avimimus]

4 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

Not with a neutral stick: the requirement for forwards stick pressure for level flight is a perfectly well documented fact for several types. You would not want to trim that out in a real fighter/scout if it reduced your ability to turn quickly: which it would.

 

You are on much better ground with the argument that you want to trim your own stick so that the in-game pilot is exerting forwards pressure when you the player are neutral, simply because you want to. 

 

 

 

That makes a lot of sense.

 

It does mean that I'm going to have to replace my desk at the very least though! The current joystick position means that it is very fatiguing on my wrist  to apply that much of a forward position. It is also a bit of a different kind of fatigue than the original pilots would have had (more repetitive strain like than requiring arm muscle).

 

I wonder though - wouldn't it make sense to make some concessions for ergonomics? For those of us who can't afford a floor mounted joystick etc.

[unreasonable]

Sure: I am on the concessions side here, but the reason is for convenience and fun for us, who are after all just gamers.

 

If the real planes needed forwards pressure to fly level, the in game stick should be in a position that your pilot avatar would need forwards pressure to achieve. But that does not mean that my or your game HOTAS has to have forwards pressure, any more than I should have to look over my own shoulder to make my in game avatar look over his shoulder.

 

If you have voice activation software you can use it to drop gear and flaps - or just about anything. My view is that when it comes to telling our avatars what we want them to do, anything goes, but they should not be able to do anything they could not do in RL.  

 

In some cases not configuring your HOTAS to be similar to the plane's would be disadvantageous - as I said there is a reason WW1 scouts, and Spitfires, were rigged to need forwards pressure. But I do not think there is any point in trying to force everyone to play the same way.

[Guest deleted@83466]

It may sound like a minor thing, but in the time I've played IL-2, one of the finer skills is being in the right trim.  I'm not talking about something as simple as trimming for level flight, which anyone can do.  I'm talking about things such as dialing in the correct trim during a dive on an enemy so that you'll be able to pull lead on him when you engage;  I'm talking like keeping the ball centered during a high speed egress, and things like that. 

 

There are now 4 World War 2 modules (not counting Tank Crew).  The current joystick calibration system works fine for them.

 

So now the World War One crowd comes in, has the game for 3 days, and is now making an effort to get the control calibration system changed to the way it was in Rise of Flight.  Understood--that was the way you did things there, and you became dependent on having these tools at your disposal to make the aircraft less demanding.  I get it.  I just think that some proposals are being put out there,  that if you're not careful, will allow certain changes to creep in to the World War 2 side of the fence, and thats starting to worry me a little.   I think if I were flying the World War 2 planes with the capability to do axis offsets to provide psuedo trim, it would feel quite gamey at this point, because it would detract from the finer motor skills of flying the aircraft.  Don't use it, you say?  Sure, except that in a multiplayer environment, the other guy will be using it, and it will probably put you at a disadvantage, if you aren't.  

 

I guess if you had what the OP proposes, it wouldn't be a terrible thing, provided it only accomplished what the historical ground crew could accomplish in terms of rigging the airplanes, and would be on a plane-by-plane basis.  Likewise, you could have some sliders to do ground adjustment of Flettner tabs on Messerschmidts, if the real aircraft had these (I believe the DCS K-4 has such sliders under the 'Special' Tab)  But any global system that essentially implements axis offsets in order to make the aircraft less demanding for players, would be something I definitely would not want to see

 

When Flying Circus was announced, it was my hope that it would be a standalone game, not another module that plugs in to the IL-2 system, but obviously that's not what happened.

Edited July 22, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HagarTheHorrible]

Any pitch trim, that is set outside of flying is, by its very nature, very limiting.  Possibly best set for cruise and 50% fuel, but very much at the pilot's discretion. Anything outside of that you are still going to have increasingly imperfect trim unless of course, you are in a trimable aircraft.

 

The proposal is really nothing more than giving players the possibility of taking some of the strain out of level flying, primarily during normal, cruising, flight without the rigmarole and complexity of the response curves that may be assisted some more knowledgeable players over others.

Edited July 22, 2018 by HagarTheHorrible

[ZachariasX]

One has to keep in mind that you can sort of pre flight trim your plane anyway to your discretion by using the software supplied with your HOTAS. If you set the center there „off center“ then the game will use that as such and the plane will use the stick inputs accordingly.

 

Also, in DCS curves etc are a basic feature. For FSX / P3D there is FSUIPC as a plugin to program your inputs.

 

Thinking that not supplying curves would enforce realism is moot, as thinking that not supplying Teamspeak will prevent voice communication for planes that didn‘t have a radio.

 

Not doing so will just alienate the not so pure casual flyers and make them stay away from the game. The main point is that you cannot trim your plane in flight, hence it will mostly have wrong trim anyway. But having curves just lets you minimize your misery, especially when having a „bad stick“.

[Guest deleted@83466]

I never said anything about "curves", which are already a feature of IL-2.  I'm talking about axis offsets.

 

I can already see where this is going:  You guys [edited] until you get the developers to make the aircraft easier to fly.   You read what Chill31 said, right?  That he has to apply constant downward pressure on his stick for straight and level flight, and though tiring, it is just the way it is.  But thats too inconvient for some of you!

Edited July 22, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
Lenguage

[ZachariasX]

35 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

I never said anything about "curves", which are already a feature of IL-2.  I'm talking about axis offsets.

 

I can already see where this is going: [edited] until you get the developers to make the aircraft easier to fly.   You read what Chill31 said, right?  That he has to apply constant downward pressure on his stick for straight and level flight, and though tiring, it is just the way it is.  But thats too inconvient for some of you!

[edited], just to be clear. I just said everybody has the functions in question at hands right now.

Edited July 22, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin
lenguage

[Guest deleted@83466]

31 minutes ago, ZachariasX said:

[edited], just to be clear. I just said everybody has the functions in question at hands right now.

 

I thought you were talking about S-curves, something you can already do, but I'm talking about being able to provide psuedo-trim with axis offsets, something you currently cannot.

 

But hey, if everybody can already do this in their HOTAS software, great:  It means that the developers don't need to do it themselves in the game.  Problem solved!

 

 

Edited July 22, 2018 by SYN_Haashashin

[HiIIBiIIy]

11 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

You read what Chill31 said, right?  That he has to apply constant downward pressure on his stick for straight and level flight, and though tiring, it is just the way it is.  But thats too inconvient for some of you!

I understand what you are saying, but does Chill's plane start a loop when he lets go of the stick?

[Guest deleted@83466]

5 minutes ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

I understand what you are saying, but does Chill's plane start a loop when he lets go of the stick?

 

If the current FC DR1 has such a nose up tendency that it will do this, and the real thing doesn't do that, then it is a flight model problem that should be corrected based on whatever valid information is available.  (Obviously FM discusions are a whole other can of worms, so lets not have one, it's still too early in the day)

Edited July 22, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[HiIIBiIIy]

Just now, SeaSerpent said:

 

If the current FC circus DR1 has such a nose up tendency that it will do this, and the real thing doesn't do that, then it is a flight model problem that should be corrected based on whatever valid information is available.

Agreed, but the deves said NO FM changes,and having a pitch off-set compensates for faulty FMs. Besides if they did allow off-sets for FC planes it would not effect WW2 planes like your bail-out button doesn't effect FC planes.    

[SYN_Haashashin]

21 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

If the current FC DR1 has such a nose up tendency that it will do this, and the real thing doesn't do that, then it is a flight model problem that should be corrected based on whatever valid information is available.  (Obviously FM discusions are a whole other can of worms, so lets not have one, it's still too early in the day)

Just another reminder, FM discusions are under rule 18.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

 

Haash

[ZachariasX]

 

8 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

 

If the current FC DR1 has such a nose up tendency that it will do this, and the real thing doesn't do that, then it is a flight model problem that should be corrected based on whatever valid information is available.  (Obviously FM discusions are a whole other can of worms, so lets not have one, it's still too early in the day)

 

With the stick in position center, the plane should pitch up at higher cruising speeds. It is correct.

 

The ability to influence the neutral position of the flight stick on your actual desk is a wholly different matter. 

[Guest deleted@83466]

16 minutes ago, SYN_Haashashin said:

Just another reminder, FM discusions are under rule 18.

 

18. Claiming that FM is incorrect without the required proof and starting a flame thread based on such claim is prohibited.

The form for an FM claim consists of:

• short but consistent description of the claim;
• link to a reference and to a specific part of such reference that describes correct behaviour of a disputed element/situation;
• game track record and the list of conditions used to recreate disputed element/situation.

 

Haash

 

Why are you reminding me?  I didn't say the flight model was incorrect.  I was asked if Chill31's aircraft had such nose-up tendencies that it would auto-loop itself, a question I'm not capable of answering.  Given that the guy has a REAL DR1, I think it is quite valid to point out that IF the REAL thing doesn't do it,  but the FC aircraft does, then it is an issue of Flight Model that needs to be addressed, not the absence of RoF-style axis offsets.  This discussion is about the ability to bias flight controls.

Edited July 22, 2018 by SeaSerpent

[SYN_Haashashin]

3 minutes ago, SeaSerpent said:

Why are you reminding me?  I didn't say the flight model was incorrect.  I was asked if Chill31's aircraft had such nose-up tendencies that it would auto-loop itself.  Given that the guy has a REAL DR1, I think it is quite valid to point out that IF the REAL thing doesn't do it,  but the FC aircraft does, then it is an issue of Flight Model that needs to be addressed, not the absence of RoF-style axis offsets.

Sorry if you felt that way, not my intention. I did quote your post since its was the last before mine with those word in it (FM discusion). Again, nothing to remind you but to all since I see several post talking about FM already.

 

Apologies again, should have written differently my post.

 

About the last part of your post. Yes very valid point and there is a way for it to be addressed, and it is following rule 18.

 

Haash

 

P.D: Rule 6

[unreasonable]

2 hours ago, HiIIBiIIy said:

I understand what you are saying, but does Chill's plane start a loop when he lets go of the stick?

 

The FC Dr.1 will sit quite happily at a high AoA climb with hands off the stick. If you release the stick from level flight it will pitch up to less than 45 degrees (judging from outside view - it looks more in the cockpit) and then mush down,  slowly porpoising into the climb configuration that requires no forwards pressure. Not really "starting a loop", IMHO.

 

Personally I think that the need for any pitch axis offset is over-rated. However, if people want it (pre-flight) they can do it with stick software, so there is no reason not to have it in the game except the programming cost.  If it saves a few people from getting RSI, good, although if they have a stick with an adjustable strength centering spring they might be better off just adjusting that.

Edited July 22, 2018 by unreasonable

[unreasonable]

I would love to have a nice long stick, Plank old chap, but unfortunately I have to make do with my short one!    It does vibrate nicely just before the stall, though...

 

 

[ZachariasX]

FC will finally make me buy a VIRPIL stick with extension, I‘m sure... and desk mount. Still have to figure a way to break it to the home front...

[Pict]

9 hours ago, Plank said:

constant fwd pressure to keep the plane flying level with the throttle jammed open

 

Good points Plank.

 

That's why I pull back on the throttle and work the blip switch (DR.1 having both possibilities) often when flying anything that likes to clime like a mountain goat and has no trim possibilities.

 

I was never a big fan of the DR.1 so never put may hours in on it, but from what I did with it figured that it wasn't built for speed and an open throttle was for going up in a hurry  

 

It behaves itself much better when you throttle back in level flight although I have no idea what the difference in speed overall would be, but I'd say you will surly loose some from leaning forward heavily on the stick the way you need to when the throttle is wide open.

Edited July 23, 2018 by Pict

[US103_Baer]

Given FC's modelling is so heavily converted from RoF (understandably), and RoF had axis offsets and curves per plane to help pilots (with good reason), perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect some clarity from Devs on the roadmap for this?

Edited July 23, 2018 by US103_Baer

[ZachariasX]

1 hour ago, US103_Baer said:

Given FC's modelling is so heavily converted from RoF (understandably), and RoF had axis offsets and curves per plane to help pilots (with good reason), perhaps it's not unreasonable to expect some clarity from Devs on the roadmap for this?

Let‘s be fair. The devs surpassed every expectation in their first bit of the final product, delivered to us as early access. It is also of note that the whole BoX is by far the most accessible CFS out there that envisions a realistic depiction of things. Assuming that the devs would depart from this strategy based upon the feature count of an ealy access module is ludicrous.

[US103_Baer]

11 hours ago, ZachariasX said:

...the whole BoX is by far the most accessible CFS out there that envisions a realistic depiction of things. Assuming that the devs would depart from this strategy..

Agreed, great job so far.

 

Would simply point out that degree of 'realism' is often a business decision and reliable points of data from ww1 are sparse. 

 

FC was based on RoF and RoF had adjustable curves and offsets per plane, which made sense given the nature of the planes as provided in RoF.

My comment is wondering what the plan is in this area. Not a complaint, just a request for clarity.