PDA

View Full Version : About the wobbles



Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 10:30 AM
I never thought they were realistic/unrealistic in 4.02 because (a) I wouldn't know (few of us would) and (b) I didn't find them hard to overcome. So, my question is, what makes everyone so sure it is more realistic to have them gone? Or is it just a case of "I feel more like the Ace that I know I should be now?"

Conversely, I see even some of the people who didn't like the wobbles before now complaining that the FM now "feels like it's on rails" and I wonder. So same question, how do we know 4.02 wobble was realistic, and if not, by how much was it off?

Finally, will we ever be satisfied?

These are honest questions btw rather than just rhetorical ones. Save any insults, cheek, or similar lunacy for someone who will actually care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

msalama
02-24-2006, 10:41 AM
Well I don't have the foggiest, really, being the clueless bastage that I am http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif But when it comes to this...


Finally, will we ever be satisfied?

...the answer is a resounding "NO". Unfortunately http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

danjama
02-24-2006, 10:48 AM
i got bob2 today and the wobbles are alot worse than in this game, especially with 4.04 update to the wobbles

that saud, this game bests it hands down so far at everything

KG26_Alpha
02-24-2006, 10:50 AM
It was possibly an attempt to model side slip and give the aircraft that sliding feel as you high bank turn especially into the prop.

In fact I had the wobbles and didnt realize it till i tested the rudder for myself after watching some tracks. Lo and behold the wobble in a FW190 was 7-8 but I had lived with the Bf110 and Stuka doing the nose wobble before 4.01 so I didnt norice it so much.


But after flying only bombers since installing 4.04m I will grab some stick time in a FW/Spit and have a look.

Maybe this old IL2 engine is maxed out as far as trying to get a realistic feel to the aircraft instead of the "on rails" feeling that was originally modelled, certainly though I would like to see these planes behave a bit more naturally instead of the pilot crushing manouvers they are possible of doing now and especially the AI aircraft with those crazy bat turns.
These old planes should move around in the air alot more than they do at present but also they need slowing down too, imagine watching real WW2 planes trying to do what you can in IL2 hehehe.

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 11:38 AM
That's the thing Alpha, was it realistic or wasn't it? I pegged my slight osscillations to adverse yaw and gyroscopic precession. And while I don't have a clue how accurate it was, I enjoyed the sensation - it really contributed to the illusion of being suspended in air.

That said, I probably would have had a very different opinion had I not been able to control it like many others at the time. With a little forethought, some sensitivity tweaking and more deliberate control inputs I had no trouble at all with 'wobble'.

The question then becomes is this a further improvement of the FM fidelity or a concession to community uproar? I sincerely hope it wasn't the latter, but at this point it's really hard to tell.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
So, my question is, what makes everyone so sure it is more realistic to have them gone? Or is it just a case of "I feel more like the Ace that I know I should be now?"

Conversely, I see even some of the people who didn't like the wobbles before now complaining that the FM now "feels like it's on rails" and I wonder. So same question, how do we know 4.02 wobble was realistic, and if not, by how much was it off?

Heh, 'first-impressions' threads are popping all over, and this is completely natural.

Jetbuff, I just posted about the same points you're asking on another thread, then quoted myself on yet another thread about first impressions, just because I had it all written already. In a few days the threads, possibly, will be more spread over the forums, so I hope you won't mind my quoting what I wrote yet again. Not trying to spam my views, honest, http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif just trying to participate, and discussions are all over the place http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Having said that,

Originally posted by DaimonSyrius:
Meanwhile...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Definitely, something's changed... for the better.
At least the P-51, in my system, feels and flies better, less oscillations, but it isn't rigid either. More stable when shooting too.

And the day after...

It certainly feels good to me, and it's not 'on rails' either. If I try to correct the aim in the middle of a manoeuvre, I'll still have to struggle with the nose wanting to wander around, but that's in a way that appears to me as more 'proportionate' (for lack of a better word) than in 4.03.

With 4.03 I didn't have any uncontrollable or chaotic or erratic (as in unpredictable) nose-wandering ('wobbles'), but it took too much 'wrestling the stick' (I don't have pedals -yet-) to keep it under control. It was too twitchy.

Now with 4.04, I don't feel the need to wrestle the stick AND the way the plane reacts is also predictable when I am hamfisting the stick, or just manoeuvring hard. Predictable means, for me, that the gyro, P-factor, torque, etc., forces are there and are pushing, so no 'on rails' for me, but they push in a way that makes quite some sense to my aeronautically-uneducated mind, in a more proportionated way as I said.

This is only the next day, and having flown only the P-51D (and the P-47D for a short spin). BTW, I have a better (TM) feeling now, too, of the relative weights and sizes of both (P51 and P47), but it's too shortly after anyway.

So, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif from me (for what it may be worth)

Cheers,
S. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
That was on Kuna's thread here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1191058514/r/3781012614#3781012614), btw.

Finally, will we ever be satisfied?
If 'we' means 'all of us', probably not http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

Cheers,
S.

jds1978
02-24-2006, 12:41 PM
i was satisfied with the state of the 4.03 wobbles....

the biggest problem with the 4.02 wobbles was that it seemed to plague certain planes in an illogical way (IE: P51, P47, F4U and F6F were all wobble machines in sim....and very heavy fighter planes that were historically stable platforms IRL)

I don't get the "on rails" effect either with 4.04

tomtheyak
02-24-2006, 12:52 PM
I've flown the majority of RAF trainer types of recent past (Chipmunk, Bulldog, Vigilant powered glider) a piper cub, cessna 152 and even a Stearman (just about 20 hurs in total) and tho these I know are far from WW2 warbird types, that suspended in air feeling is NOT how it feels - aircraft do feel solid - it is like driving a car but in three dimensions.

turbulence is a little disconcerting, but mainly results in small acceleartions mainy in the vertical plain much more felt than seen, and inbuilt stability means that any uncontrolled movement in any direction tends to corect itself without wide variations or oscillation.

warbirds are not as stable as trainers admittedly, but a good measure of aerodynamically stable behaviour is inherent in the designs or else the planes become tiring and unforgiving to fly - imagine having to correct the aircarft every half second, fight it even just to stay straight and level. this is why these aircraft have dihedral, or as in the B-25 anhedral.

This feels far more realistic to my limited experience.

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 02:04 PM
Daimon, I saw your post earlier and was pleased to see at least one retractd opinion re: on-rails comment.

Originally posted by tomtheyak:
tho these I know are far from WW2 warbird types,
Thank you for your input and I know my 'gliding through air' was probably baseless. However, this is the thing, do we really know if they wobbled or not? All of the arguments I've heard thus far, in both directions mind you, just aren't conclusive. e.g. I love the "they were gun platforms so they had to be steady" argument. So what? I doubt stalls were ever a design feature... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I guess since we don't know it's not a big deal either way, but I find it funny how vehement some people got over the wobbles just based on their personal beliefs.

Kuna_
02-24-2006, 02:23 PM
There will always be ranting comments on just about any part of the game. And too positive ones. All sort of things.

Anyway I can't imagine how could I like any previous 4.xx patch better than this particular one as far as physics are concerned. I'm liking it big time.

Is this v4.04 good/realistic?

I know my anwer, but best answer to this question is probably the fact that this community has never ran out of masochysts. Just spank the bugger harder and he's happy.

jds1978
02-24-2006, 03:04 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
Daimon, I saw your post earlier and was pleased to see at least one retractd opinion re: on-rails comment.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tomtheyak:
tho these I know are far from WW2 warbird types,
Thank you for your input and I know my 'gliding through air' was probably baseless. However, this is the thing, do we really know if they wobbled or not? All of the arguments I've heard thus far, in both directions mind you, just aren't conclusive. e.g. I love the "they were gun platforms so they had to be steady" argument. So what? I doubt stalls were ever a design feature... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

I guess since we don't know it's not a big deal either way, but I find it funny how vehement some people got over the wobbles just based on their personal beliefs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

great way to twist my comment around....i never said that "they were gun platforms so they had to be steady"

thats like saying "It has four legs and a tail...it must be a cat"

the planes i mentioned were all heavy AC that were noted stable platforms...in 4.02 they were not.

that is probably the reason they've been changed through rudder dampening in 4.03/4.04

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by jds1978:
great way to twist my comment around....i never said that "they were gun platforms so they had to be steady"
That comment was not directed at you. It was directed at others who have literally used that argument. Yours reminded me of it, but I wasn't being an @$$ - I find that sort of behaviour petty and I'm no hypocrite so I don't do it myself.

the planes i mentioned were all heavy AC that were noted stable platforms...in 4.02 they were not.
For you and many others. Ask Kuna here. He shared a track of his wobbles with me and I actually had my work cut out for me to reproduce them on my end.

that is probably the reason they've been changed through rudder dampening in 4.03/4.04
I too think/hope it was simply a buggy joystick polling routine or something. Simply put, while I cannot say it's more realistic, I know that what I experienced in 4.02 felt exhilirating. I can see how my opinion would be very different though if I had experienced what Kuna did.

However, whatever they did, my first ride in my beloved 109F-4 in 4.04 was a let down, stable as a rock. I loathe to use the "on-rails" reference but I'm tempted.

DaimonSyrius
02-24-2006, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I too think/hope it was simply a buggy joystick polling routine or something. Simply put, while I cannot say it's more realistic, I know that what I experienced in 4.02 felt exhilirating. I can see how my opinion would be very different though if I had experienced what Kuna did.

However, whatever they did, my first ride in my beloved 109F-4 in 4.04 was a let down, stable as a rock. I loathe to use the "on-rails" reference but I'm tempted.
It's probably too early to say in a definite tone, for me anyway... too much posting, too little flying yet. But I still feel that I need to be sensible with my joystick inputs in 4.04. The 'need to be sensible' is the important point for me, and my feeling now is not like in 3.x where you just pointed your nose wherever you wanted and there you went, barring an occasional sudden stall that would turn into a spin no matter what.

As I said before, the more complex forces (gyro, P-, etc.) are there, and they push. I need to bear them in mind. In that sense, I don't see the 'rails'. Anyway, some more time won't hurt in forging a better founded opinion (I'm meaning mine here).

Cheers,
S.

Jetbuff
02-24-2006, 08:34 PM
Just thought of something that would be hilarious if true:

Looking at the readme for 4.04 we see the following listed changes:

1. Implemented work arounds for some ATI & NVIDIA drivers bugs.*
2. Fixed a bug with Mosquito damage modeling.*
3. Patched up a hole in the Mosquito cockpit.*
4. Reversed the gear indicator light in the Do-335 cockpit
5. Fire extinguishers added to the Mosquito.*
6. Corrected some bomber formation AI.*
There is no mention of any messing about with anything FM-related. Maybe, just maybe it's all in our heads? Do not underestimate the power of the placebo, it's the reason test subjects in clinical drug trials are never told whether they got the real drug or just mineral water.

I can just imagine Oleg sitting back in Moscow and laughing at all of us (me included) pontificate about the differences between 4.03 and 4.04! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Grey_Mouser67
02-24-2006, 10:04 PM
I've seen and heard enough stuff that I think maybe that patch that was released, had a wrong file in it.

There are things that changed and effects that I've seen now that I just don't believe Oleg whipped up in a few days.

Whatever it is, I like it much better than 4.03

VW-IceFire
02-24-2006, 10:10 PM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I never thought they were realistic/unrealistic in 4.02 because (a) I wouldn't know (few of us would) and (b) I didn't find them hard to overcome. So, my question is, what makes everyone so sure it is more realistic to have them gone? Or is it just a case of "I feel more like the Ace that I know I should be now?"

Conversely, I see even some of the people who didn't like the wobbles before now complaining that the FM now "feels like it's on rails" and I wonder. So same question, how do we know 4.02 wobble was realistic, and if not, by how much was it off?

Finally, will we ever be satisfied?

These are honest questions btw rather than just rhetorical ones. Save any insults, cheek, or similar lunacy for someone who will actually care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Come of things come to mind.

1) When some of us were experiencing the wobble problem it was met with disbelief, abuse, flaming, an inability to comprehend that some people had a very serious issue that made the game somewhat to completely unplayable meanwhile other people were unaffected

2) The wobbles like I saw it were nothing short of unmanageable. I cannot believe that any WWII fighter would fly like that. I don't have the foggiest of how it would actually fly myself...however, when I go and show a few pilots and see some more comments posted on here, they all say the same thing: the yaw osscilation was excessive and overdone.

3) Now that the problem is finally fixed and the rest of us can enjoy the game like most of you have been during this whole time we've got people coming out of the woodwork saying the game feels like being on rails now. Well maybe thats a bit closer than it was before...we've got lots of people who figure "harder" is more realistic...but this has been shown to not always be true. Either way...it would have been nice for everyone to have come out of the woodwork before when we were having problems instead of bashing it now when we finally, thankfully, don't.

Wobbles ...so long...good riddance.

Jetbuff
02-25-2006, 02:41 AM
I hear you Icefire. I did not discount the experiences of those who were having trouble, though I proposed that since some of has did not have it, it may not be the FM per-se.

Point is, I did not experience the same wobble as some of you did, just a gentle, well-damped adverse yaw. I had to 'work' at it to get the plane to wobble: P-51, 100% fuel, below 300kph, tweaked controls, deliberately sloppy inputs, etc... Basically, 4.02/03 required me to fly a lot more smoothly and I enjoyed it. I'm hoping it's a placebo effect, mob-mentality, a change to the input routines or that I'm simply jumping to the wrong conclusion (got a pair of pedals - my first ever - at the same time as 4.04 was released) but 4.04 feels far too forgiving in comparison from my point of view.

Slechtvalk
02-25-2006, 03:58 AM
I am glad that they are gone!

It was just a control input error and not realistic wobbles.

Full rudder when flying in a straight line would give me stall sounds and in my case it was far overdone. Fast corners with rudder input above 300km/h would give me constant stall sounds.

But the thing is not all had this problem, I heard many who don't see a difference with the previous patch so I really believe it was an input problem and not realistic FM.

lowfighter
02-25-2006, 04:25 AM
Originally posted by Jetbuff:

However, whatever they did, my first ride in my beloved 109F-4 in 4.04 was a let down, stable as a rock. I loathe to use the "on-rails" reference but I'm tempted.

Jetbuff, I'm sad to hear this about the Bf. Since patch came I didn't have much time to test, just tested the obvious wobblers Corsair and P47. After I saw the wobbles of these planes much diminished I had kind of an aprehension, I was saying to myself, now all this would be perfect IF they didn't tone down the wobbles on the "wobblefriendly" airplanes like the BF's etc. Still don't have chance to fly, and really hope you are wrong!
Cheers!

jds1978
02-25-2006, 05:55 AM
Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jetbuff:
I never thought they were realistic/unrealistic in 4.02 because (a) I wouldn't know (few of us would) and (b) I didn't find them hard to overcome. So, my question is, what makes everyone so sure it is more realistic to have them gone? Or is it just a case of "I feel more like the Ace that I know I should be now?"

Conversely, I see even some of the people who didn't like the wobbles before now complaining that the FM now "feels like it's on rails" and I wonder. So same question, how do we know 4.02 wobble was realistic, and if not, by how much was it off?

Finally, will we ever be satisfied?

These are honest questions btw rather than just rhetorical ones. Save any insults, cheek, or similar lunacy for someone who will actually care. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Come of things come to mind.

1) When some of us were experiencing the wobble problem it was met with disbelief, abuse, flaming, an inability to comprehend that some people had a very serious issue that made the game somewhat to completely unplayable meanwhile other people were unaffected

2) The wobbles like I saw it were nothing short of unmanageable. I cannot believe that any WWII fighter would fly like that. I don't have the foggiest of how it would actually fly myself...however, when I go and show a few pilots and see some more comments posted on here, they all say the same thing: the yaw osscilation was excessive and overdone.

3) Now that the problem is finally fixed and the rest of us can enjoy the game like most of you have been during this whole time we've got people coming out of the woodwork saying the game feels like being on rails now. Well maybe thats a bit closer than it was before...we've got lots of people who figure "harder" is more realistic...but this has been shown to not always be true. Either way...it would have been nice for everyone to have come out of the woodwork before when we were having problems instead of bashing it now when we finally, thankfully, don't.

Wobbles ...so long...good riddance. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen, Ice

The thing could not be simply joystick related...you may be able to negate the problem with heavy dampening/filtering, but then you are stuck with a joystick that is set to fly maybe 10% of the planes in Sim. Besides, both 4.03/4.04 have wiped out the wobbles which indicates to me that this was a coding issue with the FM, not a hardware issue.

I was a nay-sayer until i switched to Full Real...before i had the torque/gyro effect turned off...once this was turned on *BAM* wobble mania. I basically quit flying certain AC rather than deal with the frustration.

There is enough posting from actual pilots on this forum to testify to this...3.xx was way too smooth...4.01/4.02 was completely unrealistic in regards to stability issues

I can understand some unstability in light AC, but this may be too much for the code to handle

To have a 7 ton fighter sway back and forth due to slight rudder imput, or worse, when firing your weapons is insane and pretty much disregards physics

carguy_
02-25-2006, 06:29 AM
Wobble?Nah I fixed it like 3 months ago.Planes I fly most often:109,190,La,Spitfire,P39,P51,P40 already had all of them gone.

Since 4.03 I experienced a strange behavior of the109 - when I pull too much on the stick the right wing drops BUT after the nose wandering up.I read here somewhere this simulates torque effect.I think this is very nice.


One thing I had big problem with was rudder.No filtering or deadbanding helped.When applying incy bit even the tail used to swing rather violently to the side.The other thing was that if I wanted to apply little rudder to the side and then immediately to the other > the tail was wandering all over the place.

This problem made rudder useless when adjusted to positions other than full left <> neutral <> full right,especially at finding firing solution.

I did not know that rudder can have such a big unfluence on horizontal stability.

Now that it`s gone I can use rudder to full effectiveness again though I have no idea as to which setting was more realistic.

Rudder behaviour/influence changed dramatically.Hence IMO one of the two settings was unrealistic.Which one???

Seems planes are now as stable as they were in 3.04.

Would like to hear some explanation on this.

jds1978
02-25-2006, 10:59 AM
i was just thinking....this has got to be the only pro-wobble thread ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

heywooood
02-25-2006, 11:15 AM
some people had wobbles, some people didn't, and some people had 'em but didn't know it.

I had 'em - there was some transient code that affected some machines/hardware but not others.

I have flown in a small prop plane before- low wing retractable Piper Cherokee Arrow II and it had yaw characteristics...but the whole idea of a vertical stabilizer is to stabilize the airplane in the yaw axis...duh.
Some FB/PF planes flew as if there were no vertical stab on them. At least for those of us who were afflicted with 'yawbbles' thanks LeXX for the term.
Now we have a much more accurate simulation of stabilized, coordinated flight.

Jetbuff
02-25-2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by jds1978:
i was just thinking....this has got to be the only pro-wobble thread ever http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
Nope not really pro-wobble. More like pro-good-thing-those-of-us-without-wobble-felt-in-4.02/03. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif I'm personally hoping I made a hasty assessment and that with time I'll get to experience what I experienced in 4.02/03 again. For those of us without wobble, it was fun.