Tempest ripping wings off is not realistic

[Blackhawk_FR]

35 minutes ago, Black-Witch said:

 

Yes, read my post again, it's quite clear.

 

Sorry but no, nothing show how much you pulled before the 5G pull out that finally break your wing. How much Gs did you took before? 

 

But let's say we trust you when you say you never pulled up to 14G before the 5G pull out. 

Still:

2 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

Tacview is known to be quite inaccurate for Gs. 

 

And, to confirm, you should:

2 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

Take a Tempest offline, and make a continuous 5G turn, by monitoring the in game accelerometer, which is accurate. Or make severals dive pull outs at 10G (or more), and then check again if you wing break at 5. 

 

If you can confirm with the accurate accelerometer from HUD that you can break the wing with severals pulls (and eventually pushes) that never exceed 10G, then we can say there is may be a problem. 

Disclaimer: I already tried myself, the only time my wing break is when I pull way more than 10G. 

[Black-Witch]

1 minute ago, JG300_Faucon said:

But let's say we trust you when you say you never pulled up to 14G before the 5G pull out. 

 

Hmmm, pompous? patronising? ignored.

[Blackhawk_FR]

6 minutes ago, Black-Witch said:

 

Hmmm, pompous? patronising? ignored.

 

Just confirm what you tried with the in game accelerometer. As tacview is known to be inaccurate for Gs. 

If you want to be heard from dev, it's the only way. 

 

What part of the message you don't understand?

Edited August 18, 2020 by JG300_Faucon

[CountZero]

You should turn on instrument panel and see what in game G meter shows also at that moment, devs aint gona look at G forces indicated in techview as they cnsider them wrong.

But G meter in game only goes to 10G so you cant be sure if airplane can make it to 12G that in game specs say it can do, why they even add G meter that dont show full range that is posible for airlanes to survive lol

I dont think its problem with airplane losing wing at 10,5G when game says it should be ok to 12G or at 5G and so on, problem is in game pilot can pull so easy abow 12G, that if this was how real airplane worked it would be considered dangerous for its pilots and not alowed to fly, so why was there no warnings to pilots to not pull on the sticks so hard as they are so sensative that you will brake the wings ? or in game pilot has strenght of hulk so he can easy pull 12G+ at high speeds, or something is wrong with elevators at high speed, only thing clear to me is that what we see in game would be to dangerous in real life for pilots.

 

So they deamed important to warn pilots not to use more then 5min of max power, so that engines dont need to be owerhauled so offten, but fact that pilot can pull more then G amount wings can sustain so easy they deamed not so important to mention to pilots somehow, and all pilots new that but didnt say that to anyone and just didnt pull the sticks and thats why no Tempest was lost by it, but it was so easy to lose wings by it, it was top secret that only this game exposed. 

Edited August 18, 2020 by CountZero

[Cpt_Siddy]

Anyone remember the time when Spit could lose its vertical stabilizer because of very short, instantaneous over load on it when your rudder gave a short but very big acceleration input? 

 

 

This issue is in the same league, you can have a very short instantaneous moment where game register >9000 G's and promptly detach your wing. Even tho in reality, you did not even register over 10G's on your G meter in game. 

 

The problem in question is not that wing comes off in sustained G's, it comes off because short momenta forces that overload whatever the game consider overloaded. If this was issue in real life at all, every now and then when someone pulled on their stick on attack run from a dive, would lose their wing. This happens enough in game to be noticed, i cant believe this would not happen in real life if the same issue was there. 

 

Solution to this is simple, really, make the elevator input lag behind player input at big deflection angels at high speeds, so you don't get your maximum deflection because your plastic chinisium sticks can go from 0 to 100 in just a few grams of force and few centimetres travel... or show us the documentation that this indeed happened in combat over Europe. 

 

 

>hurr durr just adjust your joystick curves hurpaderpadurpadoo 

 

Sure, as soon as i get a this customization option for every plane separately, and not as a general setting. Ill consider doing this. 

5 hours ago, JG300_Faucon said:

 

You are so fun. You are saying a lot of things without proving anything, and after you ask others for datas. 
 

 

I've tried to look in the cases of tempest problems, and while there were myriad technical issues with the engine, i did not read from any credible sources or memoirs that people, even rarely, snapped their wings off in this thing.

 

The ball is in your court to show that this phenomena is indeed as it should be. 

 

This really is not that hard, whenever someone challenges the speeds at different altitudes, you lot jump with plethora of different graphs and reports to prove everyone wrong... 

Edited August 18, 2020 by Cpt_Siddy

[Black-Witch]

2 hours ago, Cpt_Siddy said:

>hurr durr just adjust your joystick curves hurpaderpadurpadoo 

 

 

I actually did this when I began using the Spitfire Mk IX when it arrived, so I'm already down to about 40 or 50 %, it doesn't effect the 109 as I don't "turn" in it, it does stop a lot of blacking out in the Spit & Tempest though, a lot, not all!

[HR_Zunzun]

18 hours ago, unreasonable said:

The Spitfire Va elevator force was measured by the US: 

 

"The elevator control was found to be powerful enough to develop either the maximum lift coefficient or the allowable load factor at any speed."

 

"Inasmuch as the elevator mass unbalance under statlc conditions gave a force of 4.0 pounds on the stick, it is apparent that the stick force required in accelerated flight came almost entirely from the statlcally unbalanced elevator. Practically no stick force would be required in turns if the elevator were mass balanced."

 

Not a Tempest - no idea how different that was, but British designers were clearly able and willing to make fighters with elevators that could generate very high g loads with only light-moderate stick forces. 

 

Of course, real pilots can feel the gs and use that to control their stick inputs, while we cannot, but realistically no one can sell a game in which you have to be able realistic loads on the stick, or gaming HOTAS which could tolerate these loads.  

 

 https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a801513.pdf

 

 

If I interpreted it correctly, in the report, in figs 12 and 21, it gives a pull force of 4,7lb/g and 5lb/g for pull-ups and turning pull respectively.

In fig 20 give the G achieved in a left turn at 249mph. 4-5Gs for the turn. Elevator force pull in Lb is around 20lb (that is consistent with the above figures)

Light-moderate stick forces, I think, is quite different from almost finger foce that we have to apply in our joysticks.

[ZachariasX]

6 minutes ago, HR_Zunzun said:

Light-moderate stick forces, I think, is quite different from almost finger foce that we have to apply in our joysticks.

I find the real Spitfire lighter in the pitch axis up to 300 mph than my Warthog Joystick (default configuration). The center region (about 2 cm deflection, all you need to make her fly places) is about as light as a Saitek with the lightest spring in both axes. You can fly her like that with two fingers at 300 mph easily. Both in pitch and roll. You mostly don‘t need the footwork for that.

 

The stick is long and in flight considerably forward (elevator slightly down in level flight trim) meaning if you were to pull with both hands you can do instantly considerable g‘s. It starts to get stiffer at higher speeds but still doable. As for normal turns, she doesn‘t even need a pull up, the Spitfire is remarkably effortless to maneuver. It‘s the ailerons that seize up. Especially higher deflections and at higher speed, making it difficult to just roll her without actually making a pitch input. I mean, it requires practise. It is doable of course. I don‘t know how she is at 400+ mph, but I figure she can become a piece of work.

 

I want to stress that all of this is my subjective experience that does not necessarily directly correspond to actual stick forces, but more the relationship of chair and stick geometry, strenght at hand and the dealing with dusharmonized control forces.

[unreasonable]

13 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

If I interpreted it correctly, in the report, in figs 12 and 21, it gives a pull force of 4,7lb/g and 5lb/g for pull-ups and turning pull respectively.

In fig 20 give the G achieved in a left turn at 249mph. 4-5Gs for the turn. Elevator force pull in Lb is around 20lb (that is consistent with the above figures)

Light-moderate stick forces, I think, is quite different from almost finger foce that we have to apply in our joysticks.

 

My point was not that the real stick forces are comparable to the plane's - but that there are planes where comparatively light stick forces - and very small stick movements - can generate high Gs. This is contrary to the assertion made in this thread that such design is unsafe and would never have been tolerated. (Hint - fighters are inherently "unsafe"  ) 

 

It is absurd to think that the game can try to match the actual force required to move a HOTAS stick in your comfy chair: the HOTAS is not a full simulation of a real control set, just a way in which you can tell your "pilot" where to try to move his controls, which happens to be more intuitive and natural than using a keyboard. 

 

To be clear - I am not saying everything is right with the Tempest - to the contrary, it still has an implausibly high CLmax even after it's FM tweaking. With a normal max AoA, that means you are adding more lift (and hence g) per degree of AoA than in any other fighter. I suspect that if this was modified the "elevator sensitivity" people are complaining about would be more in the ballpark with the Spitfire.  In other words, the modelling problem here is, I think, the wing, not the elevator.

Edited August 19, 2020 by unreasonable

[Cpt_Siddy]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

  In other words, the modelling problem here is, I think, the wing, not the elevator.

 

 

Yeah, if the wing continues to bite in the air and generate the lift and not having an accelerated stall, this would also contribute to this problem. 

[HR_Zunzun]

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

 

My point was not that the real stick forces are comparable to the plane's - but that there are planes where comparatively light stick forces - and very small stick movements - can generate high Gs. This is contrary to the assertion made in this thread that such design is unsafe and would never have been tolerated. (Hint - fighters are inherently "unsafe"  ) 

 

If I can black out or break my wings with an effortless pull of only a few cm, that is an unsafe design. I am not saying that the stick movement in the sim is incorrect. What  I am trying to explain is that the input we create (because of our home joysticks limitations) makes it unsafe. If a real aircraft had the input forces and stick travel that we have in our house for achieving high Gs, it would be, in my opinion, very unsafe.

It is not to say that is not flyable. I have teached my self to be very very gentle with both spit and tempest. I use some degree of nose down trim to help increase stick travel range (then I have to fly with a pull to keep straight&level fly). The problem is that I have learned the hard way. Blacking out and dying many times. In real life that would be quite unsafe.

 

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

It is absurd to think that the game can try to match the actual force required to move a HOTAS stick in your comfy chair: the HOTAS is not a full simulation of a real control set, just a way in which you can tell your "pilot" where to try to move his controls, which happens to be more intuitive and natural than using a keyboard.

 It is not absurd. It could be replicated with the right force feed back joystick (I mean, could be constructed, not that is or will be available). The problem is that, most of us, do not have even a comercial force feed back joystick and only ones that translate stick movement but not force applied in the pull. The sim then need to interpret this. I do not know if the dev have given the exact figure of the force applied. If I remember correctly, in the old il246 it was 50lb.

The point is, that in real life, stick movement depend on the force required that increases with speed. There is also a feed back of such resistance to the pilot who can estimate better how much pull is applying (also together with physical feeling of different accelerations). We do not have any of this in the sim.

 

9 hours ago, unreasonable said:

To be clear - I am not saying everything is right with the Tempest - to the contrary, it still has an implausibly high CLmax even after it's FM tweaking. With a normal max AoA, that means you are adding more lift (and hence g) per degree of AoA than in any other fighter. I suspect that if this was modified the "elevator sensitivity" people are complaining about would be more in the ballpark with the Spitfire.  In other words, the modelling problem here is, I think, the wing, not the elevator.

If that is true it would, not doubt, collaborate to the problem.

[unreasonable]

3 hours ago, HR_Zunzun said:

 

The point is, that in real life, stick movement depend on the force required that increases with speed. There is also a feed back of such resistance to the pilot who can estimate better how much pull is applying (also together with physical feeling of different accelerations). We do not have any of this in the sim.

 

 

Of course: I use a G940 FFB HOTAS, BTW, and find it a help, but is just an indication, no commercial FFB stick could realistically model actual WW2 flight forces, hence my use of the word "absurd". At least I am sure you agree that this is not going to happen any time soon.

 

There is no escaping the fact that if you sim-fly you have to learn how far you can pull the stick, for each plane, using the visual and audio clues, plus getting the feel of the spring centring.  I see no way around this.

[Talisman]

30 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Of course: I use a G940 FFB HOTAS, BTW, and find it a help, but is just an indication, no commercial FFB stick could realistically model actual WW2 flight forces, hence my use of the word "absurd". At least I am sure you agree that this is not going to happen any time soon.

 

There is no escaping the fact that if you sim-fly you have to learn how far you can pull the stick, for each plane, using the visual and audio clues, plus getting the feel of the spring centring.  I see no way around this.

 

As well as a MSFF2 joystick (set in-game to 100% force and shake), I also use a Gametrix 908 JetSeat with SimShaker-Wings software.  In addition to many other things, SimShaker-Wings provides feedback in the pitching and rolling motion as a special feature for IL-2 GB and I find it helps a lot.  I can't remember breaking a Tempest V wing off, although I might well have done at some time early on perhaps. 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/128-simshaker/

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

[HR_Zunzun]

50 minutes ago, unreasonable said:

 

Of course: I use a G940 FFB HOTAS, BTW, and find it a help, but is just an indication, no commercial FFB stick could realistically model actual WW2 flight forces, hence my use of the word "absurd". At least I am sure you agree that this is not going to happen any time soon.

 

There is no escaping the fact that if you sim-fly you have to learn how far you can pull the stick, for each plane, using the visual and audio clues, plus getting the feel of the spring centring.  I see no way around this.

Yeah, I agree that is not going to happen anytime soon. Just pointing out that technically was possible.

On your second stament is where I disagree partially. Obviously, there is a learning curve to cope with the new G forces and limits but, I also think there is room from the devs to tuning and improving in the way the software is programmed to interpret our joystick inputs.

14 minutes ago, 56RAF_Talisman said:

 

As well as a MSFF2 joystick (set in-game to 100% force and shake), I also use a Gametrix 908 JetSeat with SimShaker-Wings software.  In addition to many other things, SimShaker-Wings provides feedback in the pitching and rolling motion as a special feature for IL-2 GB and I find it helps a lot.  I can't remember breaking a Tempest V wing off, although I might well have done at some time early on perhaps. 

https://forum.il2sturmovik.com/forum/128-simshaker/

 

Happy landings,

 

56RAF_Talisman

 

I am more and more interested on it. All I have read about it is going in the same direction as your experience.

Need to do more research. Do not know if going for the jetseat or trying to customize my chair with DIY transducers.

[von_Tom]

On 8/17/2020 at 10:18 PM, Cpt_Siddy said:

 

There is exactly zilch instances that i have been able to find where anyone mentioned *anyone* pulling off a wing when exiting from dive.

 

 

Maybe they all died in the resulting crash.

 

My personal view is that if people want to fly like they did in real life then they need a full length stick.  If they don't have that, dial the sensitivity way down and possibly even limit the amount of throw their joystick has..

 

Or exercise restraint.

 

von Tom