Jump to content

DM Question


Kaiserboo
 Share

Recommended Posts

Kaiserboo

Would a Control flutter make more sense than a Control lock. As the surrounding air would kinda self stabilize the control surface to neutral. I get control Jams have been implemented for a while now but I'm just going to say mechanically it would be extremely rare and it makes no sense that it would always lock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what it's worth, I've experienced both. Not sure which should be, or is, more prevalent in game.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, 40plus said:

For what it's worth, I've experienced both. Not sure which should be, or is, more prevalent in game.

I mean if it was a wire based control surface i think it would most likely flutter. But i don't think a Jam would happen as much for a WW1 aircraft compared to a more sophiscated WW2 aircraft. And maybe it is modeled so the controls jam in the control surfaces last player inputed position. Of which if you snip a wire to the control surface the weight of the air around the control surface would self stabilize it. Though due to engine limitations i would think just letting it sit back in neutral would be good enough. And if this is already modeled which i doubt it seems odd that the jams are more common then just the control surface being neutral and uncontrollable.

Edited by Kaiserboo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk

Control surfaces jamming in one fixed position is unrealistic,  most ww1 aircrafts didn't have control rods in first place. Camel is worst it had 4 ailerons, in the game when one aileron is hit and jamm ,in the result all 4 will jamm at once.  In realistic modeling  you could cut off cable or destroy hinge and that aileron should flutter in the air, rest ailerons should be operational because of separate cables. 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[DBS]Browning

Damage to the hinges or foreign objects, such as torn aircraft structure, may well produce a jammed surface, although not in more than one surface at a time

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1PL-Husar-1Esk
36 minutes ago, [DBS]Browning said:

Damage to the hinges or foreign objects, such as torn aircraft structure, may well produce a jammed surface, although not in more than one surface at a time

Who knows,  it's speculation,  but imo destroyed hinge would not bolt cable, rather make it loose . Torn fabric unlike , read many account but never heard that they fixed surface.  Read about jammed surface because of damaged control stick. Now in game we have one outcome,  jammed surfaces,  with luck in neutral position. 

Edited by 1PL-Husar-1Esk
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
4 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Who knows,  it's speculation,  but imo destroyed hinge would not bolt cable, rather make it loose . Torn fabric unlike , read many account but never heard that they fixed surface.  Read about jammed surface because of damaged control stick. Now in game we have one outcome,  jammed surfaces,  with luck in neutral position. 

Exactly, fantastic points

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ACG_Talisman
7 hours ago, 1PL-Husar-1Esk said:

Control surfaces jamming in one fixed position is unrealistic,  most ww1 aircrafts didn't have control rods in first place. Camel is worst it had 4 ailerons, in the game when one aileron is hit and jamm ,in the result all 4 will jamm at once.  In realistic modeling  you could cut off cable or destroy hinge and that aileron should flutter in the air, rest ailerons should be operational because of separate cables. 

 

This, 100% this!  Well said.  I love IL-2 GB, but find it hard to understand how we get what we have got at the moment with no fix :(

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US93_Larner

There's been a bit of disagreement on the wing strength side of the DM (some people think it's fine, others think wings are too flimsy) but I think the thing we can all agree on is that the control surface loss is just egregious...yesterday I was doing some dogfight practice with a couple of the 213th boys and roughly half of our SPAD XIII vs Pfalz XII 1v1s resulted in someone getting a control jammed or broken from a passing snapshot. 

 

my two cents are that control surface loss (I.E a surface control cable being severed and the control hanging loose) was a great idea to implement (it's one thing you notice being mentioned in memoirs / reports / etc), but that it's been made, just, far too common. Control cables absolutely did get shot out, but it would have to be a lucky (or unlucky) hit. 

Control surfaces jamming, however, just feels like a carryover feature from WW2 that inadvertently affects WW1, and doesn't seem very realistic at all. Especially not when, as @1PL-Husar-1Esk mentions, one bullet inexplicably jams multiple ailerons / controls.  

If I were to weigh in on "Fixing" the DM, I'd say make the chance of shooting a control out far lower, and drop control jams entirely. 

Edited by US93_Larner
  • Like 2
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
Posted (edited)

Wing breakages can be managed by choosing engagements and when to land. Control jams can end a streak no matter how good/skilled the pilot is and they can't be managed via precautions like wing breakages can as they depend on "lucky hits" . I hate to say it but the control jams IMHO have proven to be the biggest upset in the FC community as a whole even more so than wing breakages.

 

If the control surfaces can be revised to be neutral instead of jammed one way or another. Partial Aileron/elevator loss would also make a lot more sense unless by some chance both/all control cables are hit.

 

*(Though to consider engine limitations ergo complete control loss of one axis and the lack of seperate hitboxes for each control surface individually)*

 

If they don't Jam and instead neutralize, and the rate of controls being shot out can be lowered significantly that would be a lot better than nothing being done as it currently stands.

 

It would go a long way to make FC not only feel more in touch with reality but also less insulting to some players. 

Edited by Kaiserboo
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 I can see how a control surface get jammed if a cannon shell hits it and distorts the metal around it or damages the control linkage.  However, since cannon shells, metal structures and control rods were not at all common in WWI, control jams should almost never happen unless the stick is hit, which even then doesn’t seem very likely to cause jammed controls.  Damaged controls should occur less frequently and control jams should almost never occur in WWI airplanes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]Gorn_Captain

The only time I've ever heard of someone's control surface jamming in that period is when an observer let go of his maps. They ended up flying back and got caught in one of the elevators, causing it to jam up. Our simulated pilots could do with holding on a bit tighter under fire.

 

 

WW2 the jam frequency feels okay though, it's relatively rare and generally only after a direct hit on the control surface itself, and even then only the one struck will jam. Very different from WW1 where one burst to the wing will cut the wires to all 4 ailerons...

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[F.Circus]MoerasGrizzly
7 hours ago, [F.Circus]Gorn_Captain said:

The only time I've ever heard of someone's control surface jamming in that period is when an observer let go of his maps. They ended up flying back and got caught in one of the elevators, causing it to jam up. Our simulated pilots could do with holding on a bit tighter under fire.

 

not gonna lie, I would love to have a chance of that happening when pressing O :P

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo

If the control jam problem was fixed how likely do you think you guys are to be willing to overlook the wing DM issues and do you think the community will be better off for it? 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bilbo_Baggins
4 hours ago, Kaiserboo said:

If the control jam problem was fixed how likely do you think you guys are to be willing to overlook the wing DM issues and do you think the community will be better off for it? 

 

Hang on, what control jam problem and DM issues do you think the Devs are overlooking? ☺️

Edited by Bilbo_Baggins
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
8 hours ago, Bilbo_Baggins said:

 

Hang on, what control jam problem and DM issues do you think the Devs are overlooking? ☺️

Touche

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Vonrd

The control jam issue is the main reason why myself and many members of our squad don't fly FC very much.

I can live with the glass wings by flying gently and disengaging when damaged, but still really want some sort of fix to it.

 

The frozen controls, as noted in numerous posts, is completely inaccurate for cable actuated controls and is just laughable (though most of us aren't laughing). 

 

Jason has said that they are aware of the issue but it doesn't seem like it's a high priority. Sure, I understand that they need to come out with purchasable content in order to survive (especially in these troubling COVID times). Still, at some point this issue should be addressed to placate their loyal customer base. I'm personally beginning to run out of patience. 

Edited by JG1_Vonrd
  • Upvote 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte
2 hours ago, JG1_Vonrd said:

The control jam issue is the main reason why myself and many members of our squad don't fly FC very much.

I can live with the glass wings by flying gently and disengaging when damaged, but still really want some sort of fix to it.

 

The frozen controls, as noted in numerous posts, is completely inaccurate for cable actuated controls and is just laughable (though most of us aren't laughing). 

 

Jason has said that they are aware of the issue but it doesn't seem like it's a high priority. Sure, I understand that they need to come out with purchasable content in order to survive (especially in these troubling COVID times). Still, at some point this issue should be addressed to placate their loyal customer base. I'm personally beginning to run out of patience. 

I agree completely. In my opinion. There should not be any pack nor module sold if it is not properly supported after release.

I misjudged my purchase on FC 2, I regret pre buying it on the bases of principles.

I took it for granted a FC 2 would mean fix current problems.

I do no longer believe that. I should have bought it when and if they where solved.

In my point of view, this is a tragic outcome of mending tanks , ww1 and ww2 packs in the same time

  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JG1_Vonrd
12 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

In my point of view, this is a tragic outcome of mending tanks , ww1 and ww2 packs in the same time

This... emphatically.

 

The issue is that the WW2 birds are much more durable than the WW1 crates. It seems to me (and I'm fully aware that I'm lacking in any true expertise on the matter of programming this game engine) that the only solution is to downplay the DM in WW2 in order to make the WW1 DM palatable. I really doubt that the majority of WW2 players would even notice that controls freezing and wings shedding is not happening very often any more. I certainly wouldn't miss them at all. The WW2 guys (myself included) are more concerned about the correct lethality of the ammo... 50 cals relatively ineffective. This has no relation to WW1.

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

US28_Baer

I agree with most of the comments here, but what can we add after 16-17 months?

Points of view have been thrashed out. Data, mechanical drawings,  videos, pilot quotes and logs have been posted.

Scores of players and whole squadrons have literally abandoned FC and a whole industry of memes has been created! 

 

Perhaps it's worth trying some quick modifications to mitigate the worst DM effects, even if they are temporary measures until a lasting DM is developed that models WW1 aircraft systems and construction. 

 

The most immediate measures:

1. Reduce control surface jams by at least a factor of 10 ( ie 50% likelihood becoming 5%)

 

2. Increase damage resistance of the wings for the Albatros, CL2, PDXII and ALL Entente aircraft (except the Bristol), to a level near that of the Fokker D7.

Edited by US28_Baer
  • Upvote 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
On 8/25/2021 at 12:12 AM, JG1_Vonrd said:

The control jam issue is the main reason why myself and many members of our squad don't fly FC very much.

I can live with the glass wings by flying gently and disengaging when damaged, but still really want some sort of fix to it.

 

The frozen controls, as noted in numerous posts, is completely inaccurate for cable actuated controls and is just laughable (though most of us aren't laughing). 

 

Jason has said that they are aware of the issue but it doesn't seem like it's a high priority. Sure, I understand that they need to come out with purchasable content in order to survive (especially in these troubling COVID times). Still, at some point this issue should be addressed to placate their loyal customer base. I'm personally beginning to run out of patience. 

Well considering the state of the ww2 damage model and the refusal to fix it, I wouldn't hold out hope.

3 hours ago, US28_Baer said:

I agree with most of the comments here, but what can we add after 16-17 months?

Points of view have been thrashed out. Data, mechanical drawings,  videos, pilot quotes and logs have been posted.

Scores of players and whole squadrons have literally abandoned FC and a whole industry of memes has been created! 

 

Perhaps it's worth trying some quick modifications to mitigate the worst DM effects, even if they are temporary measures until a lasting DM is developed that models WW1 aircraft systems and construction. 

 

The most immediate measures:

1. Reduce control surface jams by at least a factor of 10 ( ie 50% likelihood becoming 5%)

 

2. Increase damage resistance of the wings for the Albatros, CL2, PDXII and ALL Entente aircraft (except the Bristol), to a level near that of the Fokker D7.

People are leaving ww1 too? I know like 50-60 guys and gals that have left ww2 as well. It's sad to see that happen.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaSerpent
3 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Well considering the state of the ww2 damage model and the refusal to fix it, I wouldn't hold out hope.

People are leaving ww1 too? I know like 50-60 guys and gals that have left ww2 as well. It's sad to ……


WW2 damage model? Is that a typo, or are you equating what’s going on in FC to the broader, WW2 focused game?  I’m sure there’s room for improvement, but I would be surprised if there are many quitting IL-2 GB because of its DM.  There are probably some, but people quit a game or take a break for a thousand reasons.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q_Walker
6 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

the refusal to fix it

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Me my buddies say this on discord, so it must be a universal and absolute truth' is a depressing and increasingly common mindset, it appears.

  • Upvote 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
4 hours ago, Q_Walker said:

This couldn't be farther from the truth.

 

Screenshot_20210826-154725_DuckDuckGo.thumb.jpg.79bd0e970276cfe1271eb617399088ca.jpg

 

"What we want to do, if anything..."

 

Maybe refusal was an overstatement, but it is clearly not a priority for them and as a result, dedicated players have lost interest and I'm not talking about myself. 

Edited by drewm3i-VR
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q_Walker

 

34 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

"What we want to do, if anything..."

 

Maybe refusal was an overstatement, but it is clearly not a priority for them and as a result, dedicated players have lost interest and I'm not talking about myself. 

I'm not going to derail this thread further after this post, but Jason on August 6, look at the post if you would like, responded to more calls for looking into the DM. You are right, it is not a priority at this time for them, that should honestly be the only answer that is needed. What is the issue at hand, is the lack of patience that people can give to the developers considering the time and resources that they have available.

 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ShamrockOneFive
55 minutes ago, drewm3i-VR said:

 

Screenshot_20210826-154725_DuckDuckGo.thumb.jpg.79bd0e970276cfe1271eb617399088ca.jpg

 

"What we want to do, if anything..."

 

Maybe refusal was an overstatement, but it is clearly not a priority for them and as a result, dedicated players have lost interest and I'm not talking about myself. 

 

I think a bigger picture is needed to try and understand some of this. 1CGS is a relatively small development team and that means that they have constraints on the types of big projects that they can tackle at one time. Right now, the two that they are talking about that are likely consuming lots of lead programmer time are the significant changes to the fuel systems and Air Marshal. There's probably more but let's stay focused on the big picture stuff.

 

Now, this is just my armchair project manager guesses for the next bit, but I would guess that the team has a pretty solid project plan that stretches out many months from now to try and best use the team that they have. IF you devote resources from that plan to something else then you can delay other projects that are contingent on it sometimes by weeks or months or more. And that's not factoring in the comments that Jason has made about the team dealing with several team members being ill with COVID and other issues. When you have a small team like that you can't just sub someone in.

 

So I wouldn't read Jason's comment as a refusal and I wouldn't want to put a guess on priority either. If I were to make a big guess on it then I would say this: They are aware of the issue but they wouldn't want to put the cart before the horse. I would, in their shoes, want to achieve a bunch of stuff on the fuel modeling first as features there likely lead into new abilities within the damage model which lead us directly to the issues that have been brought up for damage. That makes sense from a project managers perspective.

 

 

Edited by ShamrockOneFive
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

-332FG-drewm3i-VR
1 hour ago, Q_Walker said:

 

I'm not going to derail this thread further after this post, but Jason on August 6, look at the post if you would like, responded to more calls for looking into the DM. You are right, it is not a priority at this time for them, that should honestly be the only answer that is needed. What is the issue at hand, is the lack of patience that people can give to the developers considering the time and resources that they have available.

 

You are correct that we are impatient (and this includes these fine Flying Circus gentleman that are upset too and rightfully so), but it has been 17 months and counting since the infamous 4.005 patch. I do think simply hotfixing the issue with Yak Panther's corrected ballistics and dispersion values would go a long way to appeasing the WW2 crowd:

 

 

 

 

 

55 minutes ago, ShamrockOneFive said:

 

I think a bigger picture is needed to try and understand some of this. 1CGS is a relatively small development team and that means that they have constraints on the types of big projects that they can tackle at one time. Right now, the two that they are talking about that are likely consuming lots of lead programmer time are the significant changes to the fuel systems and Air Marshal. There's probably more but let's stay focused on the big picture stuff.

 

Now, this is just my armchair project manager guesses for the next bit, but I would guess that the team has a pretty solid project plan that stretches out many months from now to try and best use the team that they have. IF you devote resources from that plan to something else then you can delay other projects that are contingent on it sometimes by weeks or months or more. And that's not factoring in the comments that Jason has made about the team dealing with several team members being ill with COVID and other issues. When you have a small team like that you can't just sub someone in.

 

So I wouldn't read Jason's comment as a refusal and I wouldn't want to put a guess on priority either. If I were to make a big guess on it then I would say this: They are aware of the issue but they wouldn't want to put the cart before the horse. I would, in their shoes, want to achieve a bunch of stuff on the fuel modeling first as features there likely lead into new abilities within the damage model which lead us directly to the issues that have been brought up for damage. That makes sense from a project managers perspective.

 

 

 

After playing DCS SoW with someone manning the SRS radio ala Air Marshall, I am super excited for Air Marshall and think it will be a great feature. I am also excited to have more accurately modeled fuel systems and drop tanks. The problem is however, that the DM has become such a problem (it is not just the .50s, but more so the way damage from HE/AP is calculated) that many in the community are no longer excited for new features and content since that which they already paid for was broken in a patch released after they purchased or pre-ordered. My guess is that if the devs are as smart as I think they are, they will address the damage model after the official release of Normandy. My guess is that there are so many things wrong under the hood currently and they know that fixing it will take time and resources that will be available after the release of Normandy.

 

The problem is that while this and other issues like low speed handling and broken nav lights linger, influential community members are leaving in droves. Here's a recent statement by IFlyCentral, for example:

Screenshot (1).png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov

Sure this is all fine and we know it's a small team and they've got plans and priorities and staff issues and money and covid and stuff like that and so on and so forth but what could be more important than focusing on FC DM issues? I can't think of anything. Nothing immediately springs to mind. Of course these comments are truthful and completely unbiased and anything other than that perception is purely coincidental. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaSerpent


 

1 hour ago, drewm3i-VR said:

You are correct that we are impatient (and this includes these fine Flying Circus gentleman that are upset too and rightfully so), but it has been 17 months and counting since the infamous 4.005 patch. I do think simply hotfixing the issue with Yak Panther's corrected ballistics and dispersion values would go a long way to appeasing the WW2 crowd:

 

 

 

 

 

 

After playing DCS SoW with someone manning the SRS radio ala Air Marshall, I am super excited for Air Marshall and think it will be a great feature. I am also excited to have more accurately modeled fuel systems and drop tanks. The problem is however, that the DM has become such a problem (it is not just the .50s, but more so the way damage from HE/AP is calculated) that many in the community are no longer excited for new features and content since that which they already paid for was broken in a patch released after they purchased or pre-ordered. My guess is that if the devs are as smart as I think they are, they will address the damage model after the official release of Normandy. My guess is that there are so many things wrong under the hood currently and they know that fixing it will take time and resources that will be available after the release of Normandy.

 

The problem is that while this and other issues like low speed handling and broken nav lights linger, influential community members are leaving in droves. Here's a recent statement by IFlyCentral, for example:

Screenshot (1).png


I guess this is news to me, because you’re talking about some exodus from GB because of DM, while this thread was clearly in regards to FC. Now admittedly, I’ve haven’t played a whole lot for a few months, but  never heard anything like this.  I’ve heard that some think the .50s are too wimpy.  I can’t say it’s something I’ve noticed, nor have I ever felt I was plagued with a bad DM in GB.  

 

I know that when I fly through a stream of 20mm, I’m -expecting- the result will be the rapid destruction of the aircraft.  I’m probably too busy mashing CTRL-E or yelling at my wingman to ponder the particulars of what shell took out what system and if it should have.  I do know it’s almost always believable that I’m now a lawn dart.  In the particular case of FC, on the other hand, it’s understood that a lot of people do not believe that their plane should be collapsing around them as a result of a few measly rifle caliber bullets…understood.


And btw, citing someone who specializes in singing songs about Focke-Wulfs on his YouTube channel as some kind of authority figure on this “issue” or on anything else for that matter is a non-starter, as far as I’m concerned.  I don’t dislike him, and have had a few laughs with him myself, but with all due respect, his opinion on this sim is no more sophisticated or based on anything more nuanced than that of anyone else.  (Good luck to him on DCS jets…everything is 100% perfect over there, LOL)

 

 

 

Edited by SeaSerpent
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, drewm3i-VR said:

Well considering the state of the ww2 damage model and the refusal to fix it, I wouldn't hold out hope.

People are leaving ww1 too? I know like 50-60 guys and gals that have left ww2 as well. It's sad to see that happen.

 

If one person knows dozens who've left, the handwriting is on the wall. At that rate, there's maybe, five, six weeks tops, before we've all quit.

 

Devs, just don't even bother finishing Normandy. Close up shop right now.

 

I don't know how everyone else will cope... but I'm going to climb into my Typhoon, not wear my oxygen mask, and wait for the fumes to lull me into the big sleep.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, ST_Catchov said:

Sure this is all fine and we know it's a small team and they've got plans and priorities and staff issues and money and covid and stuff like that and so on and so forth but what could be more important than focusing on FC DM issues? I can't think of anything. Nothing immediately springs to mind. Of course these comments are truthful and completely unbiased and anything other than that perception is purely coincidental. 

Yes they are small team and they have accomplished a lot in the time this game has been around and despite Covid has still kept functioning. That is credit earned where credit is due. I would like to reiterate that though i don't know exactly what is involved nor required for these such fixes, i also know they have a lot on their plate in regards to Normandy and FC2, Fuel tanks, and Air Marshal. I do respectfully ask for some form of damage control even if it means lowering the frequency of control jams just like @Baer said so that we can stop this Mass Exodus and somewhat preserve the FC community and hopefully the WW2 community. As For those talking about WW2 i appreciate your points and insights if you want to create a thread and post the link to that here feel free.

Edited by Kaiserboo
  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LuseKofte

I just say. They have painted them selves into a corner. Developing 3 packs at the time, covid, lack of coders and I am sure a lot of unknown problems .

I am not saying devs are not doing anything. I am saying they are now in the mid's of high ambitions nightmare.

All these things to do with coving restriction.

And people say they refuse to fix, are there no shame?

I will not buy into anymore ww1 stuff, because I doubt it ever will be a priority. 

I am not doing it to "punish" developers. I have nothing but respect for what they are doing

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SeaSerpent
7 hours ago, LuseKofte said:

 

I will not buy into anymore ww1 stuff, because I doubt it ever will be a priority. 

I am not doing it to "punish" developers. I have nothing but respect for what they are doing


Agree on the respect.  I quit FC because there were too many King Kamehameha sized Biatches for my liking within the community.

Edited by SeaSerpent
Typo
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

ST_Catchov
4 hours ago, SeaSerpent said:

I quit FC because there were too many King Kamehameha sized Biatches for my liking within the community.

 

That's just not on man! Is this true community comrades? Well, is it? This behaviour must stop immediately. This is the internet not some banana republic!

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avimimus
On 8/20/2021 at 10:35 AM, Kaiserboo said:

Would a Control flutter make more sense than a Control lock. As the surrounding air would kinda self stabilize the control surface to neutral. I get control Jams have been implemented for a while now but I'm just going to say mechanically it would be extremely rare and it makes no sense that it would always lock.

 

For what it is worth - I've had control surfaces which are disconnected move based on the local airflow around them... so you end up with both Ailerons 'up' for a few moments etc. :) It makes flying... interesting...

 

I suspect that both are modelled - rods jamming the control surface or wires cut and the control surface completely loose and uncontrolled - I'm sure I've seen both.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

DBFlyguy

Taff in Exile latest video contains some "interesting" displays of the current state of DM... how did these two JU-87s not explode on impact with the ground from that height??? 🤨

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kaiserboo
8 hours ago, Avimimus said:

 

For what it is worth - I've had control surfaces which are disconnected move based on the local airflow around them... so you end up with both Ailerons 'up' for a few moments etc. :) It makes flying... interesting...

 

I suspect that both are modelled - rods jamming the control surface or wires cut and the control surface completely loose and uncontrolled - I'm sure I've seen both.

Back to what you said this neutral control "state" is a matter of luck meaning the controls jammed before you put in any stick input. This probably is the explanation for what you are experiencing 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Avimimus
1 hour ago, Kaiserboo said:

Back to what you said this neutral control "state" is a matter of luck meaning the controls jammed before you put in any stick input. This probably is the explanation for what you are experiencing 

 

Ah, but the aileron wobbles up when I pitch upward and wobbles down when I pitch downward (or the other way around - I forget... it definitely (1) moved independently of the other aileron and (2) moved aerodynamic forces due to pitch... but wasn't under my direct control).

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...