Lateral Stability in this sim

[Roger_Meatball]

I notice that this sim generally underdampens yaw oscillations compared to any flight sim I have ever flown. Releasing rudder input results in a lazy swinging from side to side even when at moderate to high speed. 

 

Considering this yaw response seems to be mostly uniform I assume it has something to do with the underlying flight model itself. 

 

Has this topic ever been discussed in depth? I would gladly read about the CLOD flight model if any resources are available.

[5th_ClydeFrog]

You're not alone noticing this and thank you so much for mentioning it ?

 

I'll go further and say most recent simulators I've played (BOS, CLOD, DCS) all have similar yaw "instability" (or rather, lack of dampening). As a result, planes feel almost like they have no weight, no inertia, and no stability, and I just don't see a 3+ tons aircraft at 500 km/h swinging its nose this way. I've never been in a 1500hp WW2 warbird of course, but i've never seen this behaviour in any plane I've been in, the closest thing beeing a beefed up Bücker Jungmann (1930s era biplane) which to me felt both very stable and insanely precise and responsive in yaw even through barrel rolls, loops, spins, etc. I would be really interested to know if people with more experience in more powerful planes have a different opinion on this !

 

Where it gets more annoying for me is that in some planes the nose will swing in unexpected directions at times where no big changes in controls or power were made, and it's hard to anticipate which way the plane will sideslip in turns/banks/pitch changes/power changes the way you would in RL (where for example your right foot is absolutely tied to your throttle movement when changing power).

 

An other important aspect where absolutely all sims fail (including Xplane and MSFS) is with the other very strong yaw effects that I would actually like to see but that are almost nonexistant, like the slipstream/gyroscopic precession/P factor combination that you experience when either changing power, accelerating or pitching up/down. They can be felt a tiny bit in the game, but not as strongly as they should be.

 

As a side note, a fun experiment you can do is to go to your local airport and count how may prop planes land right of center line (probably close to none), and how many bank to the right just after takeoff (probably a lot). This comes from insufficient use of rudder (or correcting wrongly with ailerons) to counter those yawing tendencies, by people who know and expect them, and who have been yelled at for hours by instructors telling them to use more right rudder. That's how strong they are.

 

Has this topic been discussed in depth ? Not that I know of, but I could be wrong. It has always been amazing to me how irrelevant details are reported and debated in the forums while such major aspects of flying and fundamental flaws of our beloved sims are ignored.

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

I've never seen an in depth discussion about thuis. Probably because many people don't know about these effects too well. It is easier to access documentation on events and numbers, but way more difficult to judge something like that. That is why I never say anything about FM being right or wrong because I wouldn't know.

 

The only thing I know is how DCS feels completely different to BoS and CloD. Bos feels more stable in the air, or less sensitive and more sensitive on the ground than both DCS and CloD.

 

The way I see it though is if DCS has all the Fighter Collections pilots etc. validating their FMs, they should be the right one. Maybe? ?

[Roger_Meatball]

Full disclosure: I'm an aerospace engineer and I build flight sims for a living, so I'm not really impartially observing this. That doesn't mean I'm correct about any of my assumptions, though.

 

1 hour ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

The only thing I know is how DCS feels completely different to BoS and CloD. Bos feels more stable in the air, or less sensitive and more sensitive on the ground than both DCS and CloD.

 

The way I see it though is if DCS has all the Fighter Collections pilots etc. validating their FMs, they should be the right one. Maybe? ?

 

I think BoS is the actual best in terms of "consumer plugs in joystick, moves it around, plane replicates capabilities" because of their incredible pilot physiology model. In BoS when you look at your stick it only moves the range a pilot could physically pull (accounting for pilot strength and control feedback forces). If you look at DCS, I think they map control deflections 1:1 to the input you demand; that's why in DCS the Spit is uncontrollable without input curves but still flies well in BoS by default. I only say all that to suggest that BoS appears to be a fantastic recreation of the piloting experience from a standard PC desktop setup. 

 

I think CloD does an OK job with engine torque - when you wobble your throttle around you do have to apply some roll, though in a real plane the amount of stick deflection we supply would result in a lot more force feedback, and that might be the major disconnect. 

 

It is good to know, though, that I'm not crazy in my sensing serious lack of yaw damping. Some of the Tobruk planes seem to be much more quick to yaw stability, which leads me to wonder whether they were designed with this effect having been noticed. A Spit Mk1 should not strongly in yaw for a couple seconds after rudder is released - not, at least, if it is flying well above landing speed. Pitch instability I can understand, because that is part of what makes a fighter airplane maneuverable.  

[5th_ClydeFrog]

I too had to adjust the joystick curves in DCS to mitigate this problem, then it felt much better. In BOS too, but this was a long time ago and I was told corrections have been made since.

 

20 hours ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

I've never seen an in depth discussion about thuis. Probably because many people don't know about these effects too well. It is easier to access documentation on events and numbers, but way more difficult to judge something like that. That is why I never say anything about FM being right or wrong because I wouldn't know.

 

I agree completely. I usually try to stay away from these arguments because even the rare documentation we have can be questioned. Was it possible to build those planes with low or even negative yaw stability at high speeds ? I think yes (correct me if I'm wrong). Were they really built that way ? I would think not, but I admit this is only a guess.

 

But I believe we do have a good idea on some broad characteristics that are true for most airplanes. As an example, when I can't properly stall the Me109 in DCS no matter what I try to do, I know this can't be right because we do have accounts of how this particular plane is supposed to stall in level flight and a clean configuration : with the usual nose drop and a reported tendency to roll, neither of which happen in DCS.

 

About the FM validation by pilots, this is a bit of a mistery to me. I suspect DCS was well tested with the modern jets, but to be honest, I quit both DCS (WW2) and BOS for some issues (I won't bore you with the list ?) that, in my optinion, would feel soooo wrong to a real pilot that if one truly tested this, I suspect he saw this as a fun video game and didn't give an extensive feedback. I expect BOS to be better now, I haven't played since.

 

20 hours ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

The only thing I know is how DCS feels completely different to BoS and CloD. Bos feels more stable in the air, or less sensitive and more sensitive on the ground than both DCS and CloD.

 

This is also my impression. BOS and DCS are much better than CloD in ground handling (you can't turn on the spot in CloD for example).

 

18 hours ago, Roger_Meatball said:

 

I think CloD does an OK job with engine torque - when you wobble your throttle around you do have to apply some roll, though in a real plane the amount of stick deflection we supply would result in a lot more force feedback, and that might be the major disconnect. 

 

That's true. The fact that a small movement barely percieved in the sim actually would be felt strongly in reality could lead me to wrongly say the effect wasn't modelled at all. But you are right, the torque is there and it does roll, I just wish it yawed more too. For example, try reducing power to idle while you flare : not much happens and you will do a fine landing without rudder input ?

 

Edited October 22, 2020 by ClydeFrog

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

There has been another post over at ATAG commenting exactly on your points about the rudder responsiveness. I posted a link there to this post.
Let’s see if this topic gets more attention if people like you (with knowledge and first hand experience) can give Team Fusion the right inputs. That would be great.

 

Posts #35 and #40:

https://theairtacticalassaultgroup.com/forum/showthread.php?t=34365&p=365889#post365889

 

 

 

The only time I entered a spin in a 109 in DCS was when I collided with another plane and lost my rudder. Or got my tailplane shot off or something like that. The nose down sideslip doesn’t induce roll nor yawing, and logically no spin.
Try to drop your nose in CloD without inputting rudder and the plane will immediately spin.

 

DCS models the effects of altering thrust quite well too I’say. If you throttle up or down you have to compensate. This is very noticeable in the  P-47 and Bf 109.
 

I play with a 200 mm extension for the stick, with the seat low, pedals almost in front of me (almost st the same height so my knees are high) and the stick between my legs. If I want to go full deflection on the ailerons I need to move my knees to the sides. 
Not needed in DCS because full deflection is almost always too much.  Practically just move the stick with two fingers around the center and that’s enough for most of the flying. The feedback is given by the springs and non-linear cam. So when I feel the stick getting harder I know I’ve gone far from the center.
Now imagine a desktop mounted stick in DCS with that 1 to 1 input / output relationship they model. As if everyone that flys it has a full sized cockpit at home.

In the past I played with a X-52 and Saitek rudder pedals, both which don’t have proper response around the center and tbh are sort of crappy. Fine control was extremely difficult. Playing DCS was almost a chore.

 

That is also why so many seasoned sim pilots have such a shock when playing DCS for the first couple of hours.
 

In BoS it is perfect. Like you said, you connect the controller and are good to go. No curves and the plane reacts accordingly.

 

Like I’ve heard so many times, pick parts of each sim and put them together and we would have the perfect sim!

 

To be honest I would be interested in those aspects from the two sims that don’t correlate with a real flying experience.

Specifically to the 109, my squad mates and I have been discussing how the DCS 109 behaves. Reading pilot accounts (Finnish, RAF test pilots, modern videos, different variants etc.) and comparing to what happens in DCS. We are all seasoned CloD players so that is sort of the reference. BoS isn’t far from CloD except for the felt inertia, like we’ve talked.
The 109 in DCS doesn’t bring its tail up without the hard push on the stick (109E variant needed this apparently, not the later ones). Than without stick forward and trim nose heavy It still wants to fly up instead of soaring from the ground (like you see the flying late 109s do. In the end you can still take off normally but a large stick forward input is necessary. Apparently not what the accounts said. 

And it wobbles if your inputs are too course. That is more like what I’ve read about the 109 being like a pendulum at high altitude.

Just a couple of links for anyone interested:
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/09/contending-with-torque-late-war.html
 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#general

And from Buzzsaw himself:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=36318

 

[carbolicus]

Hi folks - Yes, it was me who recently raised this on the ATAG forum, so I've just joined the il2sturmovik.com forum so I can add to this thread!  (Ex bush pilot here with aerobatic and tailwheel experience.)

 

I have raised this rudder issue before with Team Fusion but it has not been followed up, probably because many flight simmers don't fully understand primary and secondary effects of the rudder, and even many real world pilots don't unless they fly aerobatics or tail-draggers.

 

In CLoD you can't properly perform a stall turn, or sideslip easily due to the 'nodding' of the nose once you apply more than a little rudder.  In real life both manoevers are far easier.

 

It also makes taking-off much trickier than it should be, since when applying rudder to counter torque/propeller slipstream (easy in real life even with a tail-dragger) you get that wretched nodding again!  If a real aircraft were to nod like that one would suspect that the fin was too small.

 

If more people can raise this with Team Fusion hopefully they will correct it - I've raised it two or three times over the past couple of years (I love this sim) but no-one has been interested.

[Art-J]

On 10/22/2020 at 7:45 PM, ClydeFrog said:

(you can't turn on the spot in CloD for example).

 

A sidenote - in my experience (granted, only with a couple of Allied planes I fly) you can, but only if you make the plane stop completely, apply and maintain full rudder with full left/right brake and then throttle up. Might not be 100% realistic method, but it's good workaround for CloD ground handling physics shenanigans.

[5th_ClydeFrog]

Thank you for the links, as somebody posted in the first one, I realised my sensitivity was set wrong as well (as in set to 1 instead of 0). Not a factor for the stability/dampening we talked about, but it did make my job harder for corrections. I think it will be a lot better now thanks !

 

I've read the Finnish pilots accounts too, they are very interesting. At some point they mention how in their opinion the Germans flew the approach too fast. I found that you can replicate this in our sims, 190-200 km/h is too fast for us as well. It makes sense because it corresponds better to the rule of thumb that stall speed in landing configuration X 1.3 = Vref, which usually works for most planes. It also helps to come slower because I think the planes in CloD/DCS don't slow down quite fast enough and float too far in ground effect, but that's yet an other story ?. Don't remember BOS so much on this aspect but I think it did good.

 

Which version of the 109 do you think comes closer to what you found in your research ?

 

Sounds like your setup is great ? I never thought about how changing the length of the controls might change how you feel in different games but it makes sense. From what you describe, it looks very close to a real plane, as you say with only relatively small moves required most of the time, from the tip of your fingers. We're still missing the resistance and the pressure of the stick trying to move, i guess this would be the final step. I wonder how good force feedback is at replicating this as i've never tried it.

 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:44 AM, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

The 109 in DCS doesn’t bring its tail up without the hard push on the stick (109E variant needed this apparently, not the later ones). Than without stick forward and trim nose heavy It still wants to fly up instead of soaring from the ground (like you see the flying late 109s do. In the end you can still take off normally but a large stick forward input is necessary. Apparently not what the accounts said. 

 

I noticed the same thing and I'm glad someone else agrees ? Something is clearly off in several aircraft. Not only is this constant need for forward stick after lift off dangerous, but the elevator trim setting you need for takeoff clearly doesn't match the numbers in the manuals. The FW-190A is even worse : in cruise you need full nose down trim and still have to apply constant stick forward, which is precisely why the trim exists in the first place... (Not to mention it could be adjusted on the ground with the fixed tabs.)

 

I saw in a Youtube video somewhere a real F/A-18 pilot say that he felt the same pitch up tendency, and it particularily bothered him because when he boltered on the carrier, he needed forward stick during the climb out which made it difficult for him to control the plane and join the circuit in good conditions. There is may be a link

 

If you allow me a small rant, devs don't make it easy for us, having to reverse engineer all of this because the most vital information for pilots is never provided : the list of operational speeds (like Vstall, Vref, Vx, Vy, Vbest glide, etc.). I really have sympathy for new players who need to figure out everthing with only the flashcards, wich only talk about levers and buttons ?

 

1 hour ago, Art-J said:

A sidenote - in my experience (granted, only with a couple of Allied planes I fly) you can, but only if you make the plane stop completely, apply and maintain full rudder with full left/right brake and then throttle up. Might not be 100% realistic method, but it's good workaround for CloD ground handling physics shenanigans.

 

True, and you are doing it right ?. I think some planes are easier to turn than others too.

 

Edited October 24, 2020 by ClydeFrog

[5th_ClydeFrog]

Please excuse my double post.

 

On 10/23/2020 at 9:44 AM, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

Just a couple of links for anyone interested:
http://falkeeins.blogspot.com/2012/09/contending-with-torque-late-war.html
 

http://www.virtualpilots.fi/feature/articles/109myths/#general

And from Buzzsaw himself:

http://forum.1cpublishing.eu/showthread.php?t=36318

 

Reading further on the links you provided, some pilots describe that the 109 does have rather low directional stability at high speeds, even though control remains precise. So according to this account, at least for this particular plane, this feeling of "lack of dampening" might not be as exagerated as I thought. How much oscillation you would get from a fair rudder kick when the nose swings back to the other side is hard to know... we might have been wrong on this ?

 

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

Tough question re what I found closest. I was really comparing it to the DCS 109K model, since that was the “weirdest” for us. I have never stopped to really analyze what is closest beyond that.

I’d say it’s a mixed bag in the end. But take the next statements with a small grain of salt, since it’s from memory and not really  going through all the aspects and analyzing all three games.
 

DCS matches the reports for the later variant quite well. Apart from the push the stick forward during take off so your aircraft doesn’t do a loop even with full nose heavy trim. Tail should come up without needing stick input. In cruise speeds / settings I found that nose heavy trim was enough to leave the stick centered. My personal opinion is that the trim tabs on the elevator have not been modeled. So the only trim you have is the trim wheel for the whole stab. And if its modeling is correct, then that’s not enough to keep the plane level in most of its envelope. You practically never need nose up trim except maybe when landing at really low speeds to keep the three-point attitude. Some have tried x and failed - to convince Yo-Yo about this over at the ED DCS forum.

I can’t recall reading anything about stalls and spins like we have in CloD. Quite the contrary. That would mean that the way the 109 can enter a spin when pulling too hard or pushing too hard while sideslipping would be wrong in CloD.

High speed behavior seems less pronounced in CloD too. The aircraft in BoS (Mainly G-14 and K-4) locks up real bad an in DCS it gets very hard to pull out without nose up trim. Roll rate gets extremely reduced too, like it would be expected from the reports. Not so much in CloD. In DCS at lower (around 300 kph) and higher speeds in high altitude (say 450 kph at 7-10km) the plane gets wobbly in yaw and pitch, like some reports mention. You need to fly with micro inputs to keep it from oscillating.
 

Regarding the yaw under-dampening, I think it is acceptable for DCS since it models 1:1 stick inputs etc. It feels weird in CloD though, since everything else is dampened to match joystick inputs (you don’t need micro inputs to avoid bringing the plane to a wobble in the other two axis). 
 

Based on the reports I think the K-4 in DCS gets most of it right, IF you can match your inputs to what the game expects. The take off and trim aspects bother me though.

 

BoS again has for me the better consistent behavior and is best suitable for normal desktop setups. It dampens everything as if you had a right sized cockpit and control column. Behavior across the envelope seems more consistent too. Trimming works, stalls and spins are not so pronounced. But you don’t get that feeling you are actually flying the plane like you do in DCS, having to make micro corrections all the time when you make a change in speed or attitude. 
In BoS it feels more as if the plane were trimmed all the time, except for the final adjustments to keep it level, even if the trim tabs on the ailerons, rudder and elevators couldn’t cover the whole envelope.

[Art-J]

6 hours ago, ClydeFrog said:

I noticed the same thing and I'm glad someone else agrees ? Something is clearly off in several aircraft. Not only is this constant need for forward stick after lift off dangerous, but the elevator trim setting you need for takeoff clearly doesn't match the numbers in the manuals. The FW-190A is even worse : in cruise you need full nose down trim and still have to apply constant stick forward, which is precisely why the trim exists in the first place... (Not to mention it could be adjusted on the ground with the fixed tabs.)

 

Although we're getting waaaay off topic here with DCS talk, are you sure you don't have "Game flight mode" turned on by mistake? When that happens, trims don't work, making some DCS warbirds pitch up by themselves, but if you're in simulation mode, both the A-8 and D-9 can be trimmed for neutral pitch moment at any speed except very low one in landing configuration.

 

DCS 109, when flown without MW-50 mixture in the rear tank, and with reduced fuel load, can also be trimmed for almost hands-off flight up to ~410 kph IAS @ 1.05-1.1 ATA of boost, so you should be seeing that in simulation flight mode. It will indeed require stick forward input at any higher power and speed setting, however.

Edited October 24, 2020 by Art-J

[5th_ClydeFrog]

16 hours ago, Art-J said:

Although we're getting waaaay off topic here with DCS talk, are you sure you don't have "Game flight mode" turned on by mistake?

 

You are right, our enthousiasm carried us too far ? Apologies for this. We are spoiled with too many good sims to fly.

 

To answer quiclky and close the DCS excursion, no, I checked : all settings on simulation ?.. I also have friends who had the same problem and I don't think it's a matter of options. I find it strange that trim would be working for you and not for us, but at least I'm glad it's not broken for us all... Whether it has been patched in the last months I can't say, because I didn't buy theses modules after the free trial days this summer. The stall behaviour, even more than the trim, was a deal breaker for me.

 

Back to CloD talking about directional stability matters ? :

 

18 hours ago, 9./JG52_J-HAT said:

I can’t recall reading anything about stalls and spins like we have in CloD. Quite the contrary. That would mean that the way the 109 can enter a spin when pulling too hard or pushing too hard while sideslipping would be wrong in CloD.

 

The 109 spin feels fine to me, I remember reading (or watching) several comments about spinning 109s. There is no reason it wouldn't spin when stalling uncoordinated. Some people mentioned than on early 109s especially, if the plane wasn't in coordinated flight (ball centered), the slats would be opened asymetrically and this would induce an immediate spin. Then I would expect aircraft with relatively low stability (like as it would seem now, the 109 ?) would be the first to get into a spin, but also the first to be able to come out of it. More stable aircraft would require the many turns that are depicted for all planes in CloD. When people complain about "flat spins" in CloD, they usually should just apply the correct procedure and wait until it takes effect. Depending on your altitude, this might be too late, but this is still not a flat spin.

 

In general, I think the stalls in CloD are a bit generic but pretty good. They feel a bit scripted, in that every plane stalls in the same way with a heavy wing drop, and you can't find a plane that stalls wings level no matter how well you center the ball. For some planes the result happens to be correct, for others it's not, but at least I like how they feel, and if you know to use rudder and not ailerons to pick up dropping wings while approaching a stall, you can really stay on the edge and keep control in a way that feels natural. Desert Wings planes I have tried so far (109F compared to 109E for exmaple) can stall without warning in accelerated stalls though (under Gs), which came as a surprise. But I don't have a real opinion on this, either behaviour might be correct for all I know...

[DavePro]

I haven't yet managed to get a CloD fighter to do a flick entry to a spin, over the top.  Technique is to do a tight, steep turn with too much top rudder:  when it stalls it will flick into a spin the opposite way to the turn.  Even a Champion 7EC will do this - don't ask me how I know.  I'll have to try harder, maybe I'm not unbalancing the thing enough. 

 

Next:  Just tried a 109E7 with full top rudder.  It went over the top, but into a spiral dive rather than a spin.  Aileron corrected it.

Edited October 26, 2020 by DavePro
Update

[carbolicus]

Re flick entry to a spin, it seems to me that it's again the incorrect modelling of the rudder which prevents what should be an easy manoevre.

 

Flick rolls are also impossible to do correctly in CLoD - if you abruptly apply back pressure (well above normal stalling speed) to accelerate a stall, and apply rudder, it will do a flick roll of a sort, but centralising the stick and a dab of opposite rudder - which should result in immediate resumption of normal flight since the unloaded wing is now un-stalled - merely results in eccentric nose nodding etc and it takes several seconds to settle down to normal flight.

[5th_ClydeFrog]

(Sorry carbolicus I noticed your first post only just now)

On 10/23/2020 at 7:07 PM, carbolicus said:

In CLoD you can't properly perform a stall turn, or sideslip easily due to the 'nodding' of the nose once you apply more than a little rudder.  In real life both manoevers are far easier.

2 hours ago, carbolicus said:

Flick rolls are also impossible to do correctly in CLoD - if you abruptly apply back pressure (well above normal stalling speed) to accelerate a stall, and apply rudder, it will do a flick roll of a sort, but centralising the stick and a dab of opposite rudder - which should result in immediate resumption of normal flight since the unloaded wing is now un-stalled - merely results in eccentric nose nodding etc and it takes several seconds to settle down to normal flight.

 

I agree with this too.

 

My feeling is there are are 2 separate phenomenona at play. The way I think it works is like this (disclamer : pure speculation) :

1. "The thing with the wobbly nose", that will be responsible for the messy directional control (when comming out of a hammerhead for example) ;
2. What I call the "scripted stall". When you stall, I have the impression that it will execute a predetermined action that makes you stall/roll in a consistent way. If you try to control it during this 1/4 to 1/2 generic roll (it will roll no matter what), your input is more or less ignored until the action is finished. ONLY THEN will it take your input into account. If you centered the controls, it will come to a stop (with the wobbly nose effect from point 1). If you had kept serious aft stick, you will end up in a spin. And if you had some rudder input, it will apply this now, and your nose will be all over the place most of the time, though you can manage to make it somewhat cleaner if you apply a certain amount.

 

Likewise, if you are in a spin, no plane will let you stop the rotations quickly or at a time of your choosing. It's like you have to do a minimum number of turns, as if all the planes behaved like very stable GA aircraft in normal category.

 

If I remember it right, flick rolls over the top won't bring you much further than wings level because that's about where the action stops. I think torque helps you a bit roll over the top from a right hand turn (I need to retry this to be sure).

 

Am I imagining things ? ?

 

 

EDIT :

18 hours ago, DavePro said:

I haven't yet managed to get a CloD fighter to do a flick entry to a spin, over the top.  Technique is to do a tight, steep turn with too much top rudder:  when it stalls it will flick into a spin the opposite way to the turn. 

This I never tried.

Edited October 26, 2020 by ClydeFrog

[Roger_Meatball]

lol boy oh boy if I could only get someone from Team Fusion to let me have a look at the general aero model of the sim I might be able to help

The maneuverability from plane-to-plane seems good. It's just the sim in general is lacking responsiveness in yaw...

[5th_Barone]

22 hours ago, ClydeFrog said:

What I call the "scripted stall". When you stall, I have the impression that it will execute a predetermined action that makes you stall/roll in a consistent way. If you try to control it during this 1/4 to 1/2 generic roll (it will roll no matter what), your input is more or less ignored until the action is finished. ONLY THEN will it take your input into account. If you centered the controls, it will come to a stop (with the wobbly nose effect from point 1). If you had kept serious aft stick, you will end up in a spin. And if you had some rudder input, it will apply this now, and your nose will be all over the place most of the time, though you can manage to make it somewhat cleaner if you apply a certain amount.

 

Exactly the same feeling I had last time I tried few times the recovery from the spin in the Macchi.

[carbolicus]

On 10/26/2020 at 7:57 PM, ClydeFrog said:

What I call the "scripted stall". When you stall, I have the impression that it will execute a predetermined action that makes you stall/roll in a consistent way. If you try to control it during this 1/4 to 1/2 generic roll (it will roll no matter what), your input is more or less ignored until the action is finished. ONLY THEN will it take your input into account. If you centered the controls, it will come to a stop (with the wobbly nose effect from point 1). If you had kept serious aft stick, you will end up in a spin. And if you had some rudder input, it will apply this now, and your nose will be all over the place most of the time, though you can manage to make it somewhat cleaner if you apply a certain amount.

That sounds very plausible!

Let's hope they fix it soon...

[9./JG52_J-HAT]

On 10/27/2020 at 3:58 PM, Roger_Meatball said:

lol boy oh boy if I could only get someone from Team Fusion to let me have a look at the general aero model of the sim I might be able to help

The maneuverability from plane-to-plane seems good. It's just the sim in general is lacking responsiveness in yaw...

 

Hey Roger Meatball, ever tred PM'ing one of the TF members and offering help? In the past they have been very open to people who could offer valuable input to them. Don't know if that changed since 1C gave them their blessing though, but worth a try.