PDA

View Full Version : 2004 interesting thread: eric brown comments on FB



lowfighter
06-06-2006, 07:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110...=875101634#875101634 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

lowfighter
06-06-2006, 07:31 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110...=875101634#875101634 (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

danjama
06-06-2006, 08:58 AM
Cool. Im gonna try out his settings.

leitmotiv
06-06-2006, 09:04 AM
ABSOLUTELY FANTASTIC. I have added respect for this series. I have read about other WWII-era pilots liking it, but Capt.E. Brown carries a tremendous amount of authority. His Hartmann anecdote was very revealing. I'm trying his settings, too.

WOLFMondo
06-06-2006, 09:04 AM
His settings make a world of difference and you can see how the pilots strength is a massive factor in using there plane. Lets face it, 100 deflection on the controls is neither realistic or acheivable in flight for a WW2 pilot.

It has to be said that this guy is probably the most experiance piston powered WW2 pilot ever.

I use settings which are about double his and ALL planes are stable and none of them wobble. The P51 with about 50 maxiumum deflection on the elevator is a dream to fly and ultra precise. Minimising the deflection also keeps the plane nice and steady and prevents really sharp energy burning manouvers but still doesn't restrict truly manoverable planes.

bazzaah2
06-06-2006, 09:46 AM
Brown's settings are really good; I always thought they were a bit too muted looking at them, but now I've tried them out, I think they're the best of the lot.

Xiolablu3
06-06-2006, 09:51 AM
NIce post!

Remember he is trying to make a small 8 inch joystick feel like a 3 foot control stick. Thats why his settings are so 'soft'.

If you use Erics settings you will not be able to pull anywhere near full authority.

We need a joystick manufactorer to make a big 3 foot control stick we can have between our legs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOLFMondo
06-06-2006, 10:03 AM
According to him that is realistic though. If he states that flying a WW2 warbird is like that then I for one will take his very educated and experianced word for it over anyone.

faustnik
06-06-2006, 11:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WOLFMondo:
If he states that flying a WW2 warbird is like that then I for one will take his very educated and experianced word for it over anyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Cpt. Brown's books are great to read! He gives great descriptions of the strengths and difficulties with various a/c. Wings of the Luftwaffe is a must for anyone interested in German aircraft.

Found this on Wikipedia:

Brown is listed in the ******ss Book of World Records as having flown more aircraft types (487) than any other pilot in the world.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

lowfighter
06-06-2006, 11:43 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Xiolablu3:
NIce post!

Remember he is trying to make a small 8 inch joystick feel like a 3 foot control stick. Thats why his settings are so 'soft'.

If you use Erics settings you will not be able to pull anywhere near full authority.

We need a joystick manufactorer to make a big 3 foot control stick we can have between our legs http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True, but I think he was not only compensating for stick length but also for the fact that in real life a real pilot would not very OFTEN use his plane close to the edge of it's caracteristics, for the obvious reasons.

Viper2005_
06-06-2006, 12:11 PM
Don't get too carried away; the flight model has changed quite considerably since then!

As for pilot strength, even the Fw-190 with excellent handling had a stick force per g of about 6 lb/g at 300 mph measured at 4 g.

Pulling to blackout as many virtual pilots regularly do in the game therefore equates to at least a 36 lb pull on the stick.

That's enough to break most plastic PC joysticks.

To get a realistic feel in terms of stick force per g, great reductions in sensitivity are required as exemplified by the settings suggested in that thread. This is all very well, but if your stick gives full deflection at say 6 lbf (FSSB R2 at minimum stiffness setting) or even 21 lbf (FSSB R2 at maximum stiffness setting) whilst it may feel right for general flying, you'll simply run out of road in a fight.

As with so many things in life it's a compromise.

lowfighter
06-06-2006, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
Don't get too carried away; the flight model has changed quite considerably since then!

As for pilot strength, even the Fw-190 with excellent handling had a stick force per g of about 6 lb/g at 300 mph measured at 4 g.

Pulling to blackout as many virtual pilots regularly do in the game therefore equates to at least a 36 lb pull on the stick.

That's enough to break most plastic PC joysticks.

To get a realistic feel in terms of stick force per g, great reductions in sensitivity are required as exemplified by the settings suggested in that thread. This is all very well, but if your stick gives full deflection at say 6 lbf (FSSB R2 at minimum stiffness setting) or even 21 lbf (FSSB R2 at maximum stiffness setting) whilst it may feel right for general flying, you'll simply run out of road in a fight.

As with so many things in life it's a compromise. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Very nice post! However I don't agree with last sentence! Where's the compromise when you can run your AC at the edge without any problem at all for as long as you like in the game (except the blackout feature)?

Viper2005_
06-06-2006, 01:02 PM
The compromise is between realistic stick force per g on the one hand, and full control authority on the other.

So for example I currently run my FSSB R2 at the minimum settings such that 6 lb gives full "deflection".

With those settings, I can choose to have full control authority and unrealisticly low stickforce per g, or realistic stick force per g and greatly reduced authority.

Or I can accept some combination.

If I select maximum stiffness such that a 21 lb pull is required for full "deflection" in windows, I can get much more authority at realistic stick force per g, or full authority at a more realistic stick force per g.

In the limit case I'd have a stick calibrated to send full deflection values to windows at the same force as the maximum the virtual pilot in IL2 is capable of.

At that stage (assuming the sim to be accurate) I would be able to combine realistic stick force per g with full control authority.

There would still be a compromise however; I'd have to join a gym!

lowfighter
06-06-2006, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:

So for example I currently run my FSSB R2 at the minimum settings such that 6 lb gives full "deflection".

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey Viper, I can't follow you very well, namely in game the only think I am aware of changing is the normal in-game stick settings. Say if the yaw is set such that the last slider is set to 20%, then I understood that if I have the rudder at full, the AC will act as if only 20% is present.
Roughly speaking if I have all stick settings turned down to say 20% AC will perform 80% away from the edge (roll time etc)
Could you please explain more?

FoolTrottel
06-06-2006, 02:10 PM
Lowfighter, read this:
Joystick And Other Controller Profiles in conf.ini - How They Work (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/5291035934/r/5291035934#5291035934) (By DaimonSyrius) ... might clear up some things...

lowfighter
06-06-2006, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
Lowfighter, read this:
Joystick And Other Controller Profiles in conf.ini - How They Work (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/5291035934/r/5291035934#5291035934) (By DaimonSyrius) ... might clear up some things... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks Trottel, I had a quick look but I'll read it carefully tomorrow, time to go to bed http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
Looks like a nice read...

FoolTrottel
06-06-2006, 02:24 PM
Good night! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif

Viper2005_
06-06-2006, 02:31 PM
lowfighter, I have a cougar modded with an FSSB R2.

http://www.realsimulator.com/Doc/FSSB_manual_English.pdf

It's rather clever. Check out page 15 of the manual tomorrow. Good night.

leitmotiv
06-06-2006, 03:13 PM
The Saitek evo force-feedback stick has a non-F-16 handle controler (which most game joysticks are) with a longish shaft with which you can struggle and lever---admittedly, it is not floor stick, and I, for one would buy one if it were made.

bjparker
06-06-2006, 03:57 PM
It's late (for me) and maybe I'm missing the point... having skimmed DaimonSyrius's article I'm deeply puzzled.

Surely the position of a joystick should be related to the displacement of a control surface (probably directly proportional), not to force which will vary according to the airflow acoss the control surface?

Or am I missing something?

BJP

bjparker
06-06-2006, 04:14 PM
Duh - figured it out... if the game used displacements players would be able to apply unrealistic forces because they don't have force feedback with the correct forces.

So how is current forcefeedback supposed to work?

BJP

leitmotiv
06-06-2006, 06:19 PM
I am about as technical as a sea bass so I will have to read the paper on stick physics later with grinding concentration! I agree with WOLFMondo that the Capt. Brown settings are great. I "flew" and maneuvered much better and had far superior control. Stick has much more authority, is more rigid, and you tussle with it like a pilot in a WWII film. Everything goes into slow motion compared to the default settings. Action is not as frenzied. You are not maneuvering like a jet in the film TOP GUN. You are infinitely less prone to fall from a flying attitude because it is not as easy to push the aircraft beyond its limits. I tried them with one of my favorite maneuver beasts, the J2M Raiden. It no longer handled like an F-16 or rolled like winged rocket, but I had little difficulty putting it right where I wanted it. Fighting with the stick, instead of gently pushing the stick to avoid blacking out or spinning, was now a factor. No fear of fracturing my Logitech Wingman Force 3D, but struggle was now a reality. Fighters no longer handle like Pitts Specials at airshows. I'm sold.

Viper2005_
06-06-2006, 09:40 PM
It's pretty simple, but my explanation isn't that good. Bear with me...

IL2 only allows your pilot to pull or push with a certain force (probably 50 lbf). He moves the stick until this force is reached, at which point he can move it no further.

In reality, when you try to fly a simple aeroplane with manual controls, you move the stick. When the aeroplane is stationary, the stick is loose in your hand. You control the position of the stick by moving your hand.

When you're flying, the stick is stiff. Beyond a certain point you end up controlling the aeroplane by changing the force applied to the stick.

Eventually you reach the limit and can appply no more force. At this point the tail is effectively wagging the dog.

***

PC Joysticks are generally very light; perhaps 2 pounds force will give full deflection. Most sticks use a simple spring for centring, so that 2 lbf will do the job at 20 mph or 200. And anyway, even if the average PC stick required 50 lbf for full deflection, you can bet that the cheaters out there would develop lighter sticks to give themselves an advantage.

To get around this problem, Oleg has set IL2 up as follows.

Your joystick deflection is detected by Windows.
Windows makes this deflection value available to IL2. For simplicity, let's pretend it does it with a % value. 50%X and 50%Y is the centre, with 0 at the left and bottom respectively.

Now let's say you bury your stick in the bottom left corner. Windows sees 0%X and 0%Y.

It feeds this to IL2.

If you've set your input settings to all 100s, IL2 interprets this as a request for maximum stick force.

As already mentioned, this is probably 50 lbf, at least in pitch.

IL2, being a fairly simple sim appears to assume 50 lbf in all directions (IRL when working with a centre stick the ability to apply force is far from symmetrical; but that's a whole new debate!).

So, you've asked for 50 lbf in each axis, and that's what you get (never mind the fact that this gives a resultant single force &gt;50 lbf.

This force is applied to each control axis in isolation. The control surface moves. As it moves the restorative force increases. Eventually (if you're flying fast enough) the restorative force equals the force being used to move the surface and equilibrium is reached.

Change your speed and you change the equilibrium.

***

This means that IL2 behaves as though your aeroplane is being flown by a pilot who can apply a given force (say 50 lbf) in each axis. He can't apply any more force, but he can apply that force forever.

***

Therefore, IL2 can never feel realistic; in reality your ability to throw the aeroplane about the sky is a simple function of your physical strength. In IL2, everybody can apply the same force to the problem, and so air combat effectively becomes 3D chess.

However, for IL2 to "feel" right, it really needs a stick calibrated to give maximum deflection at the same force as used in game as the basis of the control calculations.

***

In the absence of this, you can cheat by tweaking the stick sensitivity. Let's pretend that IL2 uses 50 lbf, and your stick only requires 5 lbf for full deflection.

If the force required for stick deflection varies directly with the angle of deflection (true only for small stick deflections), it's reasonable to set your input settings to 10% across the board.

This means that the force you apply to your stick will be accurately represented in the game. However, since your stick hits full deflection at 5 lbf, this means that your virtual pilot will be limited to applying 5 lbf to his virtual stick in game. Since your virtual pilot is capable of applying 50 lbf to his virtual stick in game this means that you have greatly reduced control authority. However, over the limited authority available to you the "feel" is accurate.

Alternatively, you can opt for unrealistic feel and greater authority. Set the sliders to 100% and the 5 lbf you apply to your stick has the effect of 50 lbf IRL. Magic. Dogfights suddenly become much more aerobatic affairs.

The only way to have it all is to have a stick which requires the same force for full deflection as is used in the IL2 model. That isn't going to happen:

i) Most people aren't strong enough

ii) There's no way of preventing people from gaining an advantage by using lighter sticks

But it's a beautiful dream.

One day I'll set my FSSB up to its 21 lbf maximum. Then, a month or two later, I'll take up arm wrestling... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

WTE_Galway
06-06-2006, 10:38 PM
i would add to all that the problem that in a PC sim the "zero force" position of the stick is always centred .. even on a FFB stick

in a real aircraft the position where the stick will sit with zero force is often no where near the centre and depends on trim flight attitude, speed, CG, throttle and a myriad of other factors

lowfighter
06-07-2006, 02:40 AM
Ok, I think I got it, thanks Trottel Viper and Syrius! What I didn't know is that there are sticks with adjustable physical force! Now this is great, I think my next investition will be such a stick.
And visit also the gym more often, sensible tip Viper http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif
20lbf, hm, that would be nice...

rnzoli
06-07-2006, 03:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WTE_Galway:
i would add to all that the problem that in a PC sim the "zero force" position of the stick is always centred .. even on a FFB stick
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not necessarily. The USB HID standards allow the PC software to specify the "centering" point, and the FFB stick should apply forces that move the stick to that point. It doesn't have to be the middle of the scale. Can be at 70% or even at one end of the stick. I don't know how many sticks and games are compliant to this possiblity, maybe none, and this is just a theoretical possibility in the standard for now.


By the way, has anyone thought of mapping the joystick axes to the trims, instead of the normal control column axes? It could be interesting to try for those airplanes, where all 3 axes are trimmable in flight. Should give a similar feeling as the reduced sensitivity curve, or?

Salfordian
06-07-2006, 04:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
The Saitek evo force-feedback stick has a non-F-16 handle controler (which most game joysticks are) with a longish shaft with which you can struggle and lever---admittedly, it is not floor stick, and I, for one would buy one if it were made. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


You can get full length floor sticks from here:

http://www.simcontrol.co.uk/longshaft%20page.htm

alert_1
06-07-2006, 05:27 AM
Hopefully, one day we get modelled stamina with dynamic stick sensitivity feature: teh more you'll be throwing you plane round the sky, the progressively less joystick input you'd have.

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 07:09 AM
Clear as glass, Viper2005_---even I, the king of non-tech luddites, got it. Like with so many things to do with Oleg's masterpiece, if you go beyond the surface, you realize it is a wonderfully creative game. I get worn out stomping on my pedals and fighting with the Eric Brown settings---I am sure I'd be meat on a platter with real stick forces. Thank you very much for the explanation.

Thanks for the tip, Salfordian---have any idea how much the beast costs?

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 08:10 AM
The centring issue just means that current PC flightsims which don't feature back-driven sticks exhibit zero stick free stability.

This can have quite a dramatic impact upon handling qualities, generally making most aeroplanes feel less stable.

In particular, it's much harder to trim an aeroplane which has no stick-free stability, because oscillations (both long and short period) are less effectively damped.

This is probably the root cause of the "wobble" complained of by many pilots.

However, things are made much worse by the fact that most PC sticks require far too little force to attain full deflection.

Now that I've switched from 6 lbf at full deflection to 10 lbf at full deflection, my flying has become smoother.

In the longer term I think I shall have to work out some method of anchoring my stick to permit the use of the full 21 lbf at full deflection possible with the FSSB R2; it'll improve my flying and give me a workout at the same time!

*edit* glad you got it leitmotiv. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 08:51 AM
Er, how should I go about setting my sticks to 21 lbf, Viper---I could use upper arm strengthening!

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 10:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I have a cougar modded with an FSSB R2.

http://www.realsimulator.com/Doc/FSSB_manual_English.pdf

It's rather clever. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If you don't have an FSSB modded Cougar, you can't.

Even if you do, you'll have to find some way of anchoring it to something really solid; at 10 lbf it's quite close to leaving the desk when I get into a fight...

StellarRat
06-07-2006, 11:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
The compromise is between realistic stick force per g on the one hand, and full control authority on the other.

So for example I currently run my FSSB R2 at the minimum settings such that 6 lb gives full "deflection".

With those settings, I can choose to have full control authority and unrealisticly low stickforce per g, or realistic stick force per g and greatly reduced authority.

Or I can accept some combination.

If I select maximum stiffness such that a 21 lb pull is required for full "deflection" in windows, I can get much more authority at realistic stick force per g, or full authority at a more realistic stick force per g.

In the limit case I'd have a stick calibrated to send full deflection values to windows at the same force as the maximum the virtual pilot in IL2 is capable of.

At that stage (assuming the sim to be accurate) I would be able to combine realistic stick force per g with full control authority.

There would still be a compromise however; I'd have to join a gym! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>No, you wouldn't have to join the gym. Any adult male should be able to pull about 100lbs. towards them with both arms. I can do about 160 once or twice. More then enough to black myself out or destroy my plane going with 21/g.

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 12:14 PM
Well, firstly this is a one-handed business, and secondly I often fly for a few hours at a time.

If you want to get into the control forces debate, the following table is interesting:

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Characteristics of average pilot</span>
<span class="ev_code_red">Greatest all-out effort of which he is physically capable for a very short time (two hands) (lb)</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Ailerons:</span>
Stick = 90
Wheel = 120

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Elevator:</span>
Stick = 180
Wheel = 220

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Rudder:</span>
400

<span class="ev_code_red">Maximum force it is permissible to demand of him for a short while (lb) </span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Ailerons:</span>
Stick (2 hands) NA
Stick (1 hand) 50
Wheel (2 hands) 80
Wheel (1 hand) 50

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Elevator:</span>
Stick (2 hands) 100
Stick (1 hand) 70
Wheel (2 hands) 110
Wheel (1 hand) 70

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Rudder:</span>
200

<span class="ev_code_red">Greatest force he cares to exert for a short while (lb)</span>

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Ailerons:</span>
Stick (2 hands) NA
Stick (1 hand) 20
Wheel (2 hands) 30
Wheel (1 hand) 20

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Elevator:</span>
Stick (2 hands) NA
Stick (1 hand) 30
Wheel (2 hands) 40
Wheel (1 hand) 30

<span class="ev_code_yellow">Rudder:</span>
60

Derived from Morgan, M.B. and Thomas, H.H.B.M, Control Surface Design in Theory and in Practice. London: the Royal Aeronautical Society, August 1945.

StellarRat
06-07-2006, 12:53 PM
I'm not debating. The figures you included sound right to me. I just said you wouldn't have to go the gym to exert enough pressure to black out or destroy your plane.

One thing to keep in mind is that combat is a very short amount of time in real life. Most dogfights are/were over in less than five minutes. Plus even in a fight I doubt you'd be exerting full force on the controls very often. In a B and Z situation you would probably only make a couple of hard pulls on the stick during the whole fight. Even then they wouldn't be maximum force pulls.

As to the one handed bit for the most part you would only use one hand, but as soon as you needed it that second hand would be on the stick. In an emergency (break turn or something similar) you would definitely be using BOTH hands to save your butt.

When you weren't fighting you could trim up the AC to make the stick force required almost zero, so most of the time you'd actually be "resting" so to speak. Even one handed "cruising" wouldn't require much strength.

It would be interesting if they made sticks for flight sims with "real" resistance. I'd be interested in seeing how that would change our online combat.

My experience flying real aircraft is that in IL2 the amount of time it takes to move the controls across there range is way too fast. Also, I NEVER had even the slightest inclination to just yank the yoke to some opposite position instantly. My natural instincts told me this would be bad. I just can't imagine a pilot doing this in real life. Even if you wanted to it it would take more time then it does in IL2.

lowfighter
06-07-2006, 01:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
I'm not debating. The figures you included sound right to me. I just said you wouldn't have to go the gym to exert enough pressure to black out or destroy your plane.

One thing to keep in mind is that combat is a very short amount of time in real life. Most dogfights are/were over in less than five minutes. Plus even in a fight I doubt you'd be exerting full force on the controls very often. In a B and Z situation you would probably only make a couple of hard pulls on the stick during the whole fight. Even then they wouldn't be maximum force pulls.

As to the one handed bit for the most part you would only use one hand, but as soon as you need it that second hand would be in the stick. In an emergency (break turn or something similar) you would definitely be using BOTH hands to save your butt.

When you weren't fighting you could trim up the AC to make the stick force required almost zero, so most of the time you'd actually be "resting" so to speak. Even one handed "cruising" wouldn't require much strength.

It would be interesting if they made sticks for flight sims with "real" resistance. I'd be interested in seeing how that would change our online combat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right after all, no need for gym if you not fighting continuously for hours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , but having the stick up to 20lb or something will greatly increase the sensation of "reality".

hey viper, just anchor somehow your stick and tell us how it is!

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 01:27 PM
See how many times pilots describe themselves to be drenched in sweat and weak as kittens after a hard fight. Of course when you take into account how much gear they are wearing it probably doesn't take much effort to work up a huge sweat. It's interesting to take a pilot like Erich Hartmann who was very slight and compare him to all the ex-wrestlers and ex-football players the U.S. had, like Bob Johnson, with tremendous upper body strength. Johnson was probably the ideal Thunderbolt pilot---built to wrestle with the monster. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall any big guys among the top German pilots while the U.S. had many.

StellarRat
06-07-2006, 01:33 PM
That's because BIG guys couldn't fit into German aircraft.

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 02:16 PM
Forgot that, StellarRat. Exactly! In TARGET BERLIN by Price and Ethell there is an anecdote about the trials of a big 109 pilot. As I recall, he had a miserable war.

lowfighter
06-07-2006, 02:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by leitmotiv:
See how many times pilots describe themselves to be drenched in sweat and weak as kittens after a hard fight. Of course when you take into account how much gear they are wearing it probably doesn't take much effort to work up a huge sweat. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Don't forget the psychological factor. Plus the physiological effects conected with high g etc... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

squadldr76
06-07-2006, 02:46 PM
Ok, I have two questions to ask that arise from reading this topic. Firstly, I'm using a CH HOTAS setup. How can I establish those values that Capt. Brown uses? If I remember correctly, you can't change the sensitivity numbers in the simulator when you're using the HOTAS setup. But I might be wrong. Can someone enlighten?

Also, I'm in the process of writing a short stort about a Hurricane pilot and one thing I want to convey is the several aspects of air fighting that most people don't think about because their exposure is confined to watching people like Ben "AFLAC!!!" thow a P-40 around the sky like a boomerang. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif This idea of stick pressure is very fascinating. Are the values that are stated here typical for just about every aircraft in the period? So, taking a generalization should be enough, right? Any insight would be helpful.

One more question, I suppose, if you'll permit me. If you were reading such a story that was going to expose the more unknown facts about conditions in a dogfight, what sort of aspects would you want to read about? I'd like a small list from anybody who might be able to help.

Thanks everybody!

bazzaah2
06-07-2006, 03:04 PM
I have a HOTAS set up and it worked fine when I changed my settings around.

The numbers for Eric Brown's settings are at airwarfare.com and you can either change your conf.ini (prob best to back up the original first) or change them using a utility like il2 sticks. Hope that helps and well worth it, feels a lot more realistic.

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 03:40 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
I'm not debating. The figures you included sound right to me. I just said you wouldn't have to go the gym to exert enough pressure to black out or destroy your plane.

One thing to keep in mind is that combat is a very short amount of time in real life. Most dogfights are/were over in less than five minutes. Plus even in a fight I doubt you'd be exerting full force on the controls very often. In a B and Z situation you would probably only make a couple of hard pulls on the stick during the whole fight. Even then they wouldn't be maximum force pulls.

As to the one handed bit for the most part you would only use one hand, but as soon as you need it that second hand would be in the stick. In an emergency (break turn or something similar) you would definitely be using BOTH hands to save your butt.

When you weren't fighting you could trim up the AC to make the stick force required almost zero, so most of the time you'd actually be "resting" so to speak. Even one handed "cruising" wouldn't require much strength.

It would be interesting if they made sticks for flight sims with "real" resistance. I'd be interested in seeing how that would change our online combat.

My experience flying real aircraft is that in IL2 the amount of time it takes to move the controls across there range is way too fast. Also, I NEVER had even the slightest inclination to just yank the yoke to some opposite position instantly. My natural instincts told me this would be bad. I just can't imagine a pilot doing this in real life. Even if you wanted to it it would take more time then it does in IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think you are right after all, no need for gym if you not fighting continuously for hours http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , but having the stick up to 20lb or something will greatly increase the sensation of "reality".

hey viper, just anchor somehow your stick and tell us how it is! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

i) Certainly I could pull very hard once or twice. But a tough scissors fight would probably force me to take a break. Stamina, not absolute strength would be the problem. Even at 20 lbf you're heading into "this is no longer fun" territory for most people after perhaps 10 minutes or so. I often fly for a few hours solid of an evening ("just one more sortie"). Doing that at 20 lbf would probably require an increase in fitness to avoid arm ache, with control forces in roll being the limiting factor (I mostly fly the Fw-190 and therefore roll a lot!).

ii)Two hands isn't really an option with a sidestick controller. Anyway it's designed for HOTAS work and I'd end up hitting buttons or hats by mistake and causing mayhem.

iii)Cruising is fine; I'm quite adept at trimming (one of my old instructors placed great importance upon trimming and insisted that we show him a two handed "cadet wave" as proof that we had in fact trimmed the aeroplane). It's a little harder in IL2 because we don't have any stick free stability. But it still works. However, the Fw-190 only features an elevator trimmer (the other tabs are only ground adjustable). This means that trimmed flight is only really possible over a narrow speed range.

However, I have been known to leave the aeroplane to its own devices whilst I go downstairs to get a drink, and usually it's still flying roughly where I pointed it when I get back.

iv) If realistic stick forces were imposed upon all online pilots several things would happen:

a) T&B would dramatically decrease in popularity
b) The first peripheral manufacturer to sell a trim wheel would make millions.
c) Many pilots would simply quit
d) Dogfights would be somewhat shorter, rarer and far less predictable; a strong man in a P-47 might well out turn an inexperienced, unfit Bf-109 pilot
e) Stick-force cheats would become the new printscreen, trim-on-slider and prop-pitch-cheat all rolled into one. Much hate would ensue.

v) As for real aeroplanes, most GA aeroplanes are designed to make going from A to B a fast, boring experience. They tend to feature fairly high stick forces and it can be quite hard work to haul them about the sky. Pulling more than a couple of g is hard work, which is a good thing since it makes it rather hard for the pilot to unintentionally overstress the airframe. However, by no means all aeroplanes are like that. Some are fun! You really can throw them about. If anything, I'd say that IL2's response to controls is on the slow side. It shouldn't really take more than about half a second to go from one corner to the other.

vi) Eventually I'll go to 21 lbf; I'm slowly working up. At the moment 10 is quite enough.

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 04:20 PM
What is your position on force-feedback sticks, Viper2005_? Nonsense? You just about have me sold on the Cougar (I presently use, and, up until today was quite happy with, the Logitech Wingman Force 3D FF stick). Are you USAF? "Viper" reference to your "mount"? At any rate, I have received a real education from your marvelously cogent and lucid posts!!!!

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 04:41 PM
The Viper thing is just a corny Topgun reference; no F-16s for me alas. I drive gliders and piston singles at the moment whilst working towards an aviation related degree.

Force feedback could be a really good thing, but I've never seen a FFB stick which delivered on its theoretical promise. The trouble is that there's a very big difference between simulation and gaming. I've yet to find a FFB stick aimed at serious simulation, but it could be that I just haven't looked hard enough; it's been ages since I've last played with a FFB setup. I'm much more interested in accuracy and reliability.

I ended up with a Cougar after my X-45 died. I came to the conclusion that I'd had enough of buying a new stick every few months.

So I did some research and concluded that a modded Cougar was the way to go.

I started out with IJ's U2Nxt mod. It was great, but after a couple of spring failures I decided that it wasn't for me. So I dropped the big money and went for the FSSB R2 mod which should last effectively forever. We'll see!

In the grand scheme of things, it cost me less than 10 real flying hours would, so it's a good investment IMO.

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 05:51 PM
You definitely know your stuff, Viper2005_. I went after my Logitech and put Overall Effects Strength, Spring Effects Strength, Damper Effects Strength, and Centring Spring Effects Strength all at 150% (maximum). It still offers no more resistance than a child could handle, but pilot error decidedly causes a bigger kick as well as weather effects. By the way, I've suddenly become one heck of a virtual pilot since my mounts have settled down with these changes and the Brown settings. Well, you sold a Cougar---is there any place I can buy one fitted up with the FSSB R2?---besides being a technical cretin I am useless with electronics (book editor, what else?). Cheers!

Viper2005_
06-07-2006, 07:33 PM
Unless a modded cougar pops up on ebay or something, you'll have to do the work yourself unfortunately.

You will need:

i) Thrustmaster HOTAS Cougar
ii) Realsimulator FSSB
iii) a set of gameport rudder pedals (RCS, Elites or perhaps some simpeds)

In addition, I've modded my throttle with a hall sensor, and I use a set of elite rudder pedals which I may eventually mod with a hall, unless I get a rush of blood to the head and buy something really clever.

The FSSB is simplest mod I've ever done; it all works exactly according to the instruction manual and you should be able to do the whole job in an afternoon.

Fitting a hall sensor to your throttle (and fixing the awful "stiction" problem from which the Cougar throttle suffers is harder, but well worth doing.

At some point over the summer I'm going to have another go at my throttle to shift the detents around.

When I went for my U2Nxt mod I also bought a set of aluminium switch housings from IJ which are excellent.

Total cost: Expensive.

OTOH, the system works extremely well (the old elites are probably the only weak link) and I hope never to have to replace it.

http://www.realsimulator.com/html/fssb.html

For all things Cougar, go here:

http://cougar.frugalsworld.com/

The forums are excellent and filled with helpful people.

Hall sensors:
http://www.cubpilotshangar.net/

Switch housings:
http://cougar.frugalsworld.com/mods.php#IJ_casing

Information on rudder pedals:
http://cougar.frugalsworld.com/faqhardware.php#Topic2.2

I would suggest two rules with the Cougar.

<span class="ev_code_red">Rule #1</span> Don't expect much from the stock Cougar. It has awful gimballs in the stick, the throttle suffers from "stiction", and has some design flaws with its switch housings. The stock Cougar basically provides you with a handle and some buttons. The mods turn it into a world-class control system.

<span class="ev_code_red">Rule #2</span> Don't expect it to be cheap. It isn't (nothing in aviation ever is!), and you will almost certainly end up spending more than you think (import duty, exchange rates "just one more upgrade" etc).

It's a bit of a journey, but if you get to the end it's worth it, and unlike most things associate with PC gaming, it ought to hold on to its value fairly well, since basically you're buying good old fashioned mechanical hardware, though of course YMMV.

I think that the final part of the puzzle for me will be a set of simpeds to replace those tired old elites; perhaps I'll treat myself when BoB arrives...

leitmotiv
06-07-2006, 09:37 PM
Thanks much for the info, Viper2005_. I strongly suspect I am going to try the modified Cougar---I am well used to displacing lots of cash for virtual flying!

lowfighter
06-08-2006, 02:38 AM
To me it's still unclear how Brown could come with these settings. Only one thing I'm sure: he knew that with these 30% settings the AC would underperform in combat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

rnzoli
06-08-2006, 03:09 AM
it wasn't Brown, who invented these settings

it was the IL2 gamers, who invented these settings for him, based on what he saw realistic from his experience

he probably didn't think of any disadvantage, because
a) he didn't dogfight online
b) he assumed that his opponents also have realistic 30% limits.

Remember that 30% reduction is only disadvantage when others have unrealistic 100% authority with no fatigue modelled.

lowfighter
06-08-2006, 03:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:

he probably didn't think of any disadvantage, because
a) he didn't dogfight online
b) he assumed that his opponents also have realistic 30% limits.

Remember that 30% reduction is only disadvantage when others have unrealistic 100% authority with no fatigue modelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes. So it all revolves around the physiological effects which are not yet present (and some will possibly never be) in the simulation...

DaimonSyrius
06-08-2006, 04:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bjparker:
Surely the position of a joystick should be related to the displacement of a control surface (probably directly proportional), not to force which will vary according to the airflow acoss the control surface?

Or am I missing something?

Duh - figured it out... if the game used displacements players would be able to apply unrealistic forces because they don't have force feedback with the correct forces.

So how is current forcefeedback supposed to work?

BJP </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, the point is that in a real aircraft there are flight situations where the pilot cannot force the control surfaces to move up to their full range, mainly because at high speeds the air pressure on the surfaces is too great. So, if deflection of the joystick would simply and directly translate as deflection of a control surface (if joystick's position would correspond directly to control surfaces' position), that would be a gross simplification. As far as I understand it, the player's joystick/pedals position is read by IL2 game engine and this position value is then converted (by applying a simple transform that uses the values specified in conf.ini lines in the way detailed here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/49310655/m/5291035934/r/5291035934#5291035934)) to a force value; this force value is then fed to the flight model. We can look at this step as that amount of force being applied to the 'virtual joystick' of the simulated aircraft. The FM will then calculate what effect the 'simulated force' will have upon the control surfaces (ailerons, elevator, rudder) in the specific situation the plane is at the moment (speed, attitude, altitude, air density, damage, and so on).

About force-feedback joysticks, I don't really know the inner workings of how it is programmed in IL2, but what I can gather from using one (Saitek Cyborg Evo Force) is that the FF that the player feels in the joystick is proportional to the amount of 'simulated force' being used as explained above. It is very apparent to me, for instance, that the amount of force feedback I feel when moving the ailerons or the elevator is increasing as the plane flies faster. Also, I have the impression that the FF effect follows the axis profiles set in conf.ini, which would make sense too. Of course the absolute magnitude of force provided by FF is nowhere near what a real joystick would provide, it is much less. Nevertheless, what is important to me is that even if they are very small forces, they still are proportional and they change according to the flight situation, hence they provide additional sensory cues about our virtual plane's performance in each situation. Considering that we have a very reduced set of sensory inputs as virtual pilots flying a simulation (very scarce depth perception, no feel for acceleration or gravity, limited accoustic input, ony one 'virtual eye', etc.), even the scaled-down forces from my joystick's FF are useful to me, they're useful as long as they're proportional to the virtual forces involved in the simulated flight.

By the way, it's worth noting that all the FF systems I know of are sorely lacking one feature: they only provide FF for aileron and elevator axes, there are no twist-joysticks or pedal sets that provide FF for rudder.

Cheers,
S.

WOLFMondo
06-08-2006, 04:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
it wasn't Brown, who invented these settings

it was the IL2 gamers, who invented these settings for him, based on what he saw realistic from his experience

he probably didn't think of any disadvantage, because
a) he didn't dogfight online
b) he assumed that his opponents also have realistic 30% limits.

Remember that 30% reduction is only disadvantage when others have unrealistic 100% authority with no fatigue modelled. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly. But if you want to fly and have responses like a real WW2 pilot then his stick settings are a great start.

30% is a little to little for comfort but I've got used to 50% max deflection and fly online and offline with these and there nice. I don't really TnB though but do scissor fight in 190's and Tempest and 50% is enough to get the most out these planes. I very rarely stall or spin out now with them even in a violent manoever.

rnzoli
06-08-2006, 05:40 AM
I run at 80% max, because I am a T&B-ing often, and just as you indicated, it seems to me too sensitive when flying the mighty FW-190s.

What prevents me from going under 80% is the fact that sometimes I really want to sacrifice energy for a better shooting position, but with reduced authority, I cannot.

Maybe a combination of reducing the stick authority, BUT applying a hard trim-change on the slider to temporarily achive higher control surface deflection would work.

But this is a very unrealistic workaround to make a the well-know unrealistic aspect of the sim seem realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Viper2005_
06-08-2006, 08:02 AM
AFAIK there is nothing unrealistic about the control forces applied by IL2 with everything set to 100%; the weak link is the peripherals used.

The best way to increase realism is to increase the force needed for full stick deflection.

Of course, the other side of the coin is that if you want to maximise combat performance, it's quite possible to use the software which comes with something like a Cougar to develop quite complex control laws, which have the potential to greatly improve the handling qualities of the aeroplanes in the game.

For example, since IL2 models all the aeroplanes at a fixed CoG, it follows that the stall will always take place at a given elevator deflection.

Therefore, it is quite a simple matter to build in what in a modern fighter aeroplane would be called "envelope protection" by limiting control authority. At high speeds, when control deflections are force limited, you could switch into a second mode with increased authority.

Conversely, some aeroplanes (such as the Bf-109) actually attain better pitch rate performance at small stick deflections when flying at high speed. Again, a dedicated set of control laws could quite easily be developed for that situation.

You'll never turn a Fw-190 into an F-16, but you might attain a considerable improvement in certain handling tasks.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/DTRS/1983/PDF/H-1206.pdf

Worf101
06-08-2006, 08:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
I would suggest two rules with the Cougar.

<span class="ev_code_red">Rule #1</span> Don't expect much from the stock Cougar. It has awful gimballs in the stick, the throttle suffers from "stiction", and has some design flaws with its switch housings. The stock Cougar basically provides you with a handle and some buttons. The mods turn it into a world-class control system.

<span class="ev_code_red">Rule #2</span> Don't expect it to be cheap. It isn't (nothing in aviation ever is!), and you will almost certainly end up spending more than you think (import duty, exchange rates "just one more upgrade" etc).

It's a bit of a journey, but if you get to the end it's worth it, and unlike most things associate with PC gaming, it ought to hold on to its value fairly well, since basically you're buying good old fashioned mechanical hardware, though of course YMMV.

I think that the final part of the puzzle for me will be a set of simpeds to replace those tired old elites; perhaps I'll treat myself when BoB arrives... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm running the exact same rig as you cept I just broke my first spring in my Uber2NXT and will be fixing that soon. If I start breaking them on a regular basis I MIGHT go with the FSSB. I also got an early Fathers Day present to myself when my son brought up a box from the front porch, from Germany.

It contained my Simped F-16 C's. The difference between them and my CH Pro's is like night and day. With the CH my rudder work was like a butcher with a cleaver, now I'm a surgeon with a scalpel.

Da Worfster

JSG72
06-08-2006, 08:40 AM
Mmm... I cannot take off anymore in my 190 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sadeyes.gif
You don't have full rudder deflection to counter engine torque.

Or have I missed something

WOLFMondo
06-08-2006, 09:12 AM
How are you taking off?

You need to lock the wheel and apply the throttle slowly and counteract the torque as the throttle and speed increases.

Putting the throttle to 110% on take off from a standing start will cause problems and IRL could blow your engine.

Remember since these settings were made, the FM has changed. Try putting the max deflection upto 40 or 50 on the rudder.

Viper2005_
06-08-2006, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Worf101:
I'm running the exact same rig as you cept I just broke my first spring in my Uber2NXT and will be fixing that soon. If I start breaking them on a regular basis I MIGHT go with the FSSB. I also got an early Fathers Day present to myself when my son brought up a box from the front porch, from Germany.

It contained my Simped F-16 C's. The difference between them and my CH Pro's is like night and day. With the CH my rudder work was like a butcher with a cleaver, now I'm a surgeon with a scalpel.

Da Worfster </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I had 2 failures, one in pitch at after a couple of months, and one in roll after another couple of months.

Each spring change took me far longer than I expected. The first one grounded me for about a week whilst I waited for replacement springs. The second grounded me for a couple of days (I had a spare spring lying about).

Of course having taken it to bits I had to recalibrate the hall sensors.

Frankly, life's too short, and my time too valuable.

So, my U2Nxt is now a spare, gently gathering dust after having logged much less than 1000 hours total time.

If my FSSB fails anytime in the next 22 months or so, it's off to Spain for replacement under guarantee. It took me 2 days to mod my cougar to U2Nxt standard; the FSSB was a drop-in job completed in an afternoon.

Whilst writing this thread I decided to up the stick force from 6 lb to 10 lb. So I removed 4 screws and flipped 4 microswitches. Job done inside 5 minutes.

Having done some research, it turns out that the real F-16 uses about 20 lbf in pitch and about 17 lbf in roll, because it's harder to apply forces in roll.

So I think I'm going to drop my roll force from 10 lb to 8 lb. It'll take me about 5 minutes. This thing is just in a different league. It performs exactly as advertised, so I expect that it will make it to the design life. If it does, then it'll be the cheapest joystick I ever bought in terms of /flying hour.

leitmotiv
06-08-2006, 12:09 PM
Where did you get the pedals, Worf101?

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 05:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by lowfighter:
Roughly speaking if I have all stick settings turned down to say 20% AC will perform 80% away from the edge (roll time etc) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Roughly; Wrong.

When you move your stick it is commanding pilot to pull or push with some percent of ~roughly~
50 lbs (22 kg) force at least at present since IL2 start. What percent is slider number times
slider value divided by 100. So 100 slider at 20 is 20% of the about 50 lbs maximum when your
joystick is all the way deflected.

How far the control surface moves, how far the stick in the 3D cockpit moves is determined by
pilot strength versus backforce on the stick from control surface force. You go slower, it
moves farther. At some speeds it takes much less than maximum to push stick to limits for
example so you get full deflection before joystick is full over with slider 100 at 100.

Thing is that the way that works there are oddities in the dynamics but I swear that one of
yuns in very many seem able to grasp even half of it. Understanding mechanical dynamics
is not a common skill, it requires thought and yet any competent mechanic can work these
things out, it is a learned skill only.

Pilot strength modelling works in direction away from center only. Position of actual control
is result of pilot strength in one direction against control backforce. As backforce changes
while your joystick is held the same the controls will move even though you do not. Only way
to hold the stick steady is move your joystick as backforces change, as in Good Luck trying
to get that right. OTOH you get some measure of feel which before was never and by watching
where the nose of the plane goes you can react very well and do a great job of it.

Only problem is when you don't understand the workings and think that you are doing something
you really are not, like being able to hold the stick steady.

And now with 4.06 there is unspecified change that no one will know what is between model and
player until told. Some can guess is all.

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 06:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
When you're flying, the stick is stiff. Beyond a certain point you end up controlling the aeroplane by changing the force applied to the stick.

Eventually you reach the limit and can appply no more force. At this point the tail is effectively wagging the dog. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

It happens sooner than that due to one simple limitation of the strength based interface.
Whenever control backforces change, the result of that and the simple unidirectional pull
(away from center only) you command with your joystick means the control surface will move.

You CANNOT hold the controls steady in turbulence or even in say a turn where your speed
is changing, or a dive. But that's no big deal as long as you understand what is happening.
In fact there are advantages as well as disadvantages, the big one is having some kind of
feel even with a simple joystick with no FFB, just springs. All you need to know is how
it works, don't assume that joystick = control position, and watch the nose and your speed.
For a sim the last should go without saying but after so many posts about 'stick all the way
back, why isn't it...' here I find that nothing goes without saying.

You want more about unidirectional force (strength based model as now) vs backforce dynamics
and nose bob/stability, PM me. I've posted on the issue and WHY all sliders the same since
late summer 2002 and maybe 3 people seem to get it or at least bothered to discuss it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">
PC Joysticks are generally very light; perhaps 2 pounds force will give full deflection. Most sticks use a simple spring for centring, so that 2 lbf will do the job at 20 mph or 200. And anyway, even if the average PC stick required 50 lbf for full deflection, you can bet that the cheaters out there would develop lighter sticks to give themselves an advantage.

..snip..

If you've set your input settings to all 100s, IL2 interprets this as a request for maximum stick force.

As already mentioned, this is probably 50 lbf, at least in pitch.

IL2, being a fairly simple sim appears to assume 50 lbf in all directions (IRL when working with a centre stick the ability to apply force is far from symmetrical; but that's a whole new debate!).

So, you've asked for 50 lbf in each axis, and that's what you get (never mind the fact that this gives a resultant single force &gt;50 lbf.

This force is applied to each control axis in isolation. The control surface moves. As it moves the restorative force increases. Eventually (if you're flying fast enough) the restorative force equals the force being used to move the surface and equilibrium is reached.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

All good and fine, result would be 70.1 lbf. At the same time it is cross-controlling the
stick which gives you drag from two sets of control surface movements which is a bad thing
to hold anyway. So it's not a cheat in that getting more while screwing yourself is dumb.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Change your speed and you change the equilibrium. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that changes what your inputs mean. However it is the beginning of understanding the
dynamics of the model and how it affects stability if you follow that trail.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">***

This means that IL2 behaves as though your aeroplane is being flown by a pilot who can apply a given force (say 50 lbf) in each axis. He can't apply any more force, but he can apply that force forever.

*** </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's the big deal? The force limit is a compromise far less than maximum instantaneous
strength of one arm as well. Until there is endurance modelling that includes G forces
this is as good as it gets. I wish that AI gunners had these 'simple' limits, both ground
and in planes.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Therefore, IL2 can never feel realistic; in reality your ability to throw the aeroplane about the sky is a simple function of your physical strength. In IL2, everybody can apply the same force to the problem, and so air combat effectively becomes 3D chess.

However, for IL2 to "feel" right, it really needs a stick calibrated to give maximum deflection at the same force as used in game as the basis of the control calculations.

***

In the absence of this, you can cheat by tweaking the stick sensitivity. Let's pretend that IL2 uses 50 lbf, and your stick only requires 5 lbf for full deflection.

If the force required for stick deflection varies directly with the angle of deflection (true only for small stick deflections), it's reasonable to set your input settings to 10% across the board.

This means that the force you apply to your stick will be accurately represented in the game. However, since your stick hits full deflection at 5 lbf, this means that your virtual pilot will be limited to applying 5 lbf to his virtual stick in game. Since your virtual pilot is capable of applying 50 lbf to his virtual stick in game this means that you have greatly reduced control authority. However, over the limited authority available to you the "feel" is accurate.

Alternatively, you can opt for unrealistic feel and greater authority. Set the sliders to 100% and the 5 lbf you apply to your stick has the effect of 50 lbf IRL. Magic. Dogfights suddenly become much more aerobatic affairs.

The only way to have it all is to have a stick which requires the same force for full deflection as is used in the IL2 model. That isn't going to happen:

i) Most people aren't strong enough

ii) There's no way of preventing people from gaining an advantage by using lighter sticks

But it's a beautiful dream.

One day I'll set my FSSB up to its 21 lbf maximum. Then, a month or two later, I'll take up arm wrestling... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well for one the table my monitor and joystick is on will not take such changing forces for
long. Things would be more than rocking, it is a 6 foot folding worktable. It holds printer
and a stack of audio/video inputs as well as my CD rack. If the sim will require actual real
forces then it would all rain down to the floor on me. I hope no one wants that.

We have a bigger obstacle to realism anyway, called PIXELS.

I have run the sliders all high and not so high because of ONE reason only: it gives Linear
Response. The small amount I move my joystick near center means the same change as the small
amount I move my joystick at any other degree of travel ONLY if the sliders are all same value.
Some time back in original IL2 before I think 1.04 the sliders would all have to be in a straight
line from zero to high to achieve the same linearity of control, it was the only time so far
when the meaning of the sliders changed but at least we were advised of the change somewhat
clearly. I hope that the 4.06 change will be accompanied by explanations at LEAST as clear.
So all 90's or 100' or 75's is for LINEAR RESPONSE and ENOUGH AUTHORITY to maneuver and not
just some dirty little twitch cheat. I am far too old to do that cr@p anyway and it is not
any way to hang onto your E if you do so what's the problem?

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 06:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by StellarRat:
My experience flying real aircraft is that in IL2 the amount of time it takes to move the controls across there range is way too fast. Also, I NEVER had even the slightest inclination to just yank the yoke to some opposite position instantly. My natural instincts told me this would be bad. I just can't imagine a pilot doing this in real life. Even if you wanted to it it would take more time then it does in IL2. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I had emailed to Oleg exactly about this years ago and no answer. Perhaps it is the english,
I don't know Russian so my fault there. Or perhaps it is that the coding for the dynamic
would take too many cycles or be too large or too much effort.

However some changes I have seen since 4.02 lead me to believe that something like it is
taking place if at least what seems to be the base 'filter' has increased. Hehehe, I had
suggested exactly that for a change also years ago so that means it must be something else!

DFLion
06-16-2006, 06:44 PM
More information about Capt. Eric Brown CBE, DSC, AFC, RN

Here are some excerpts from Capt. Eric Brown€s actual flight test report article, flying a captured Fw190A-4 (Ref. Air International Feb 1976 Vol.10 N0.2 €" cost 45p?)
He has written a superb account of flying this aircraft and when reading it, you can only admire what a fantastic pilot he is and how he totally enjoyed every aspect of flying. I think Capt. Brown flew just about every German WWII aircraft €" including the He162, which is another fascinating article.
His glowing endorsement of Oleg Maddox€s flight sim is a great tribute to Oleg and his team. I won€t get into the joy stick debate €" a bit out of my field.

€œI was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the some-what narrow cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang.€

€œI soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tail wheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700rpm and 23.5lb(1.6atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of a Spitfire Mk.IX.€

€œA remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of re-trimming required for the various stages of flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved €" an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed.€

€œDecidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The ailerons maintained their lightness from stall up to 400mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.€

€œThe elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly so above 350mph (563km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives.€

€œAt low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre.€


This great article is far too long to be fully reproduced in this thread. I hope it gives you a good idea about how passionate Capt. Brown is about his former test flying.

DFLion

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 06:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Actually, the point is that in a real aircraft there are flight situations where the pilot cannot force the control surfaces to move up to their full range, mainly because at high speeds the air pressure on the surfaces is too great. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

At least some real pilots did use trim in combat to alleviate stick forces, as explained by
Bud Anderson. He wrote directly that trimming the Mustang in combat was a constant practice
done without thought "like tuning the radio while driving a car".

So you don't have to be the Governor of California to fly like a man.

However why anyone would force +full+ deflection at highspeed when it would undoubtedly wreck
the plane is a mystery to me.

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 07:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Viper2005_:
iv) If realistic stick forces were imposed upon all online pilots several things would happen:

a) T&B would dramatically decrease in popularity
b) The first peripheral manufacturer to sell a trim wheel would make millions.
c) Many pilots would simply quit
d) Dogfights would be somewhat shorter, rarer and far less predictable; a strong man in a P-47 might well out turn an inexperienced, unfit Bf-109 pilot
e) Stick-force cheats would become the new printscreen, trim-on-slider and prop-pitch-cheat all rolled into one. Much hate would ensue.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

a) T&B would be done at even lower speeds than now. Backforce decreses with speed.
b) We have trim in the sim although about half the players don't seem to use it and half of
those seem to regard any use of trim except for level flight as cheating. They can go find
the free chapter from Bud Anderson's bio on the web and perhaps open their eyes and minds.
c) True, many of us are no longer young or in our prime.
d) Yes with some exceptions. The P-47 with smash can do that now anyway.
e) It depends of what your 'rules' are. You play by GA methods only then already to do what
USAAF pilots regularly did (at least the experienced ones) IRL would be 'cheating'. Uh huh.
All through history war has been about 'cheats' like the bow and arrow cheat, the gun cheat,
the fighting from horseback cheat, etc. But for me it is 'does it work as real then it is
not a cheat'. And I have seen clear reference that trim in combat was done IRL. That was
posted and a self-proclaimed flight instructor threw fits about it in 2002. He would not
have survived the war without wising up. Even using trim the pilots with Yeager and Anderson
did lose weight during combat.

WWMaxGunz
06-16-2006, 07:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
I run at 80% max, because I am a T&B-ing often, and just as you indicated, it seems to me too sensitive when flying the mighty FW-190s.

What prevents me from going under 80% is the fact that sometimes I really want to sacrifice energy for a better shooting position, but with reduced authority, I cannot.

Maybe a combination of reducing the stick authority, BUT applying a hard trim-change on the slider to temporarily achive higher control surface deflection would work.

But this is a very unrealistic workaround to make a the well-know unrealistic aspect of the sim seem realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just about never pull the stick to any limit. Full deflection = too much drag.
Cross-controlling is even worse, I learned that from the Delphi gurus in 98.

Jezzadog
06-16-2006, 10:23 PM
All the talk of realistic stick forces and stick displacement adds up to nought when the slider settings derived from Capt Eric Brown€s IL2FB experiences are applied.

The real issue is whether or not (your) stick inputs result in the virtual aircraft responding with appropriate P, R and Y accelerations and rates. Capt Brown€s settings may be appropriate to one narrow flight regime; but they certainly would not be appropriate across the full flight envelope. A quick look at the settings will show you that:

Pitch: 0,1,3,7,9,14,18,23,27,33
Roll: 0,0,1,2,3,4,6,10,12,17
Yaw: 0,0,1,2,5,6,8,11,14, 16

Control authorities of 33%, 17% and 16% are clearly going to be inadequate, particularly in the low speed flight regime. Consider the following from flight tests using BF 109G-2.

Ground handling: virtually no fine control during taxying. Very wide turning circle available. Difficult to line up with runway.

Takeoff: Inadequate rudder authority to control yaw on takeoff roll. Runway needs to be about 1 km WIDE. Full backstick allows aircraft to rotate at 190 kph (well above 109 true stall speed).

Airborne:

Roll rates 350 kph: approx 30 deg/second (after roll acceleration complete). Well below expected roll rate for a fighter type aircraft.

Pitch rate 350 kph: less than 12 deg/sec. Again low for this type of aircraft.

Yaw rate 350 kph: negligible

Stall speed: true 1g stall unable to be reached. Stall has to be redefined as €˜lowest airspeed where control of aircraft can be retained€: 180 €" 190 kph (clean config), defined by full back stick not able to prevent nose drop. Approach speed (1.3Vs) needs to be in order of 230 kph in approach config.

Landing approach. Limited P, R, Y authority evident. Touchdown needs to be made above 190 kph (limit of elevator authority).

Bottom Line: By all means play around with stick forces to provide realism; but realize that the flight sim needs full control authority to provide realistic control response across the full flight envelope.

Viper2005_
06-17-2006, 06:29 PM
Please start from page #1 Jezzadog, otherwise we'll end up going round in circles. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

WWMaxGunz, now you're getting into the stick-fixed stability vs stick free stability debate, which is complicated... Will PM later. Essentially however, most flightsims (including IL2 AFAIK) operate on the basis of a stick fixed model (IL2 is rather more clever than X-Plane in that it is at least force limited). This causes problems since WWII fighters IRL are stick free.

Blottogg
06-17-2006, 08:25 PM
My take on Capt. Brown's comments, and the settings he preferred is that those best replicated the sensitivity he experienced in the real aircraft, not necessarily maximum pitch or roll rates. It could be an offshoot of what Viper2005 has been saying, that Capt. Brown was just applying either a control force or stick deflection he was used to from the real aircraft, but getting way too much response in the sim with the default settings. In lieu of a longer throw stick or stiffer springs, lower sensitivity settings gave the desired response. Given that the control model takes deflection as a force input, one third of 50 lb (or whatever the default stick force is) would probably still allow for realistic stall, T/O and landing, if trimmed correctly (which opens up the trim can 'o worms, which hopefully will be solved by rate of change limit as suggested, rather than the time delay we have now.)

Viper, what is your take on these two points I made in another thread in ORR (and apologies for quoting myself):

1) The current delay or damping effect of the rudder is excessive, and seems constant across the speed envelope. Sit on the runway and move the rudder control from stop to stop. It takes the better part of a second, in the same period it would take me to slam the rudder from stop to stop several times in a real aircraft. This wasn't a big deal prior to 4.XX, but with P-factor at least crudely modeled now (it seems to react to AoA correctly, but is on/off at a certain speed during T/O, though I could be imagining this) the rudder delay leads to a frustration PIO, especially when fine-tuning a gun shot.

2) Back stick pressure leads to an AoA increase and initial pitch rate, but then the pitch rate drops radically after the nose takes a set. There should be some decrease in horizontal tail downforce as AoA increases, but right now I think this too is excessive, leading to a ratcheting effect in pitch.

FWIW, they taught us in academics that the max control input in pitch (commanding either g or AoA, depending on the flight regime) was reached at 25 lbf in the F-16, not 20. The 25 lbf figure was for the older Block 30's and their analog flight control computer though, and may have been changed to 20 when the Block 40 (and later) went to a digital FLCS.

The mods for the Cougar look interesting, provided I win the lottery to pay for all of them (especially if I ever get serious about flying F4AF.) The force transducer setup looks very familiar. Is stick deflection articulated by springs or rubber washers with that mod? Have you looked at Saitek's rudder pedals, or are the Simpeds be be-all, end-all for rudder pedals?

Viper2005_
06-18-2006, 07:26 PM
Control delay is an issue. I suspect that it's associated with the force limited model.

However, don't trust the in-cockpit controls. They aren't connected to the control surfaces!

Take a Ta-152 up to high altitude. Put some knots on the clock and pull into the vertical. Hold until it falls off. As soon as you're established in the dive, apply full aileron and pause the game. Now look at the position of the stick and the ailerons. Repeat at different speeds.

You'll notice that the stick stays all the way over, but the aileron deflection decreases.

I would surmise that the same happens to the elevator and rudder...

&lt;&lt;More after dinner&gt;&gt;

Viper2005_
06-18-2006, 11:53 PM
Rudder delay is an interesting area. I flew a Citabria for the first time yesterday and noted with interest that the ground handling took some getting used to.

Although you can see over the nose easily enough from the front seat, it was considered good technique to weave. So you give it a boot full of rudder and it starts going right. As soon as it's started going right you apply left rudder. After a delay which would seem more appropriate for an oil tanker, it starts going left. So you apply right rudder etc..

On the ground, IMO IL2 is too forgiving; we need more inertia!

In the air, things are strange. Have you noticed that the ball "sticks"? Flying around in my 190, I sometimes notice sideslip. Kick the ball to the middle and it's gone. I can then put my feet back on the floor...

I don't have a "fine tuning" problem. In my experience, if you've got time to be "fine" you can probably use roll and pitch to do the job. For me, yaw is a "quick and dirty" solution. I'll apply a boot full of rudder and blast away.

You should really avoid yaw like the plague when trying for accurate gun solutions because of the Magnus effect. Since your weapon is rifled, your rounds are spinning, and therefore will produce lift due to circulation when given an angle of attack.

As such, unless your gunsight is really clever, or the range is really short, the chances are that you'll end up drilling holes in the wrong bit of sky.

I don't know if Oleg models this though...

In addition, PIO is more likely when performing high-pressure tracking tasks because you're probably operating with higher gain. Because you're trying to really stomp on small errors there is a greatly increased tendency to overcontrol. Try formation flying with the AI; compare and contrast.

Ratcheting is an interesting issue. There are a lot of factors at work here. IRL for example, the applied g load increases the weight of the pilot's arm which has a direct effect upon the control force input, especially if the stick has already been deflected some distance.

The dynamics of the control system itself become important and you open up a whole new can of worms. I think I'll save that for tomorrow!

PS; as for F-16's stick forces , I don't know a great deal (my handle is a corny Topgun reference rather than an F-16 reference). All I can say is that my modded stick will give 21 lbf for max deflection if I set it to the hardest settings. At present I'm on 10 lbf for both pitch and roll. If I up it much more it'll need to be stuck to my desk somehow...

It doesn't have any articulation at all. Total deflection is a few mm.

Blottogg
06-19-2006, 03:59 PM
There should be a rudder delay while taxiing with the power back, but it seems that the current in-game delay is velocity independent, resulting in the "not enough, not enough, whoa too much" effect I tend to get. I think it may also be the effect that explains the ball "sticking". Or it could be a bug in the rudder control code that keeps the rudder from recentering after some inputs. The lag incorporated into the trim to prevent on-line cheating makes centering the ball a slow motion process, too. I suppose I could load the testing software the virtual test pilots are using, but at the moment that effort exceeds my curiosity...

Realistic ground handling would need side loads modeled on the tires better than we currently have. I a real tail-dragger, you've got to constantly dance on the pedals to keep the ends from swapping (or putting enough side-load on the tire to dig in a rim, or tip over onto a wingtip... neither very good) but you're right that the current model is too forgiving. BoB:WoV does this better in my opinion.

The Magnus effect is a good point that I hadn't considered. I think you're right that it isn't modeled, and at the ranges I fire at (200 m or less) any lateral velocity caused by the effect in real life would probably be a small fraction of the target's wingspan. With more modern equipment (in the F-16 I'd fire at the dart at ~1500-2000', and with the new gunsight, the kids are claiming that they can shoot the dart off at 4000') it would be a definite factor. For that fleeting shot against an elusive (Ai) target in the game, a squeeze of rudder would be preferable (to me, at least) to a roll and pull reposition, especially if the Ai's aircraft can roll and/or pull better than mine. The mantra for a good tracking gunshot is "In plane (lift vectors aligned), in range, in trim (ball centered), in proper lead (iron sights) or pipper on (lead computing sight) for more than one time-of-flight." Not all valid shots are tracking however...

Your observation about stick and control surface movement is good too. I think the stick mirrors % of maximum force commanded (though as Neal has observed, the in-game stick can move as speed changes while the player's controller remains fixed, so I'm not sure if there's a velocity correction or variable sneaking in there or not), while the control surface seems to be connected to the actual flight model calculation. Though I don't know if the same lag is included in both, it makes sense, since the delay in model yaw matches the delay in full rudder deflection, and it would seem to me to be inefficient coding to write a separate routine for both.

I wasn't confused by your on-line nic. I remember your engineering as being much better than mine (I was a poor student 20 years ago, and I've been working half-days since then to catch up...) I'm glad to hear you're a pilot too, however. Being both adds a whole lot of synergy to each. I was just curious about your pitch and roll force numbers for the Viper. They never gave us a roll number in academics, but your numbers sound like they're in the right ballpark. And for the 21 lbf setting on your modded Cougar, yes you'll have to find something pretty sturdy to bolt it to. I don't remember it being fatiguing though. I don't remember what the T-38 was rigged for (with springs and bob-weights) but I do remember it being heavier at maximum aft stick, even with the longer control column (sometimes I'd cheat during the stall demo and use my left wrist to help keep it full aft.)

P.S. I never flew the Block 5 Vipers (I'm not THAT old) but from what I remember, they didn't have any motion in the side-stick at first. The effect was so disorienting to the pilots, the guys were apparently straining muscles trying to hold their hands steady enough. The fix was to mount the stick with rubber bushings, allowing just enough travel to give some tactile feedback. It sounds similar to the mod kit you've got.