Jump to content

Decreasing Y saturation to lower values than 100


Recommended Posts

2nuoag.jpg

 

I don't think setting like this are realistic IMHO.There should be the option to choose a curve but not to decrease the saturation on y.

 

If i fly the p51 with settings like this(never used such extreme like picture though) it give me and improved and unrealistic advantage IMO when flying on the dge of the stall .If you fly 109 you can't use this because of control stiffness at all.

 

These are some of my kills with the 109 and 190 :

 

w8nr53.jpg

 

 

So i'm not a beginner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's a great help otto, as control stiffness is modelled it can be helpful at some point while you're loosing controls at others. That guy with that mad curve can't use controls to full deflection, he probably is out of control authority while landing, and I have my doubts at high speeds. If he wants to use something like that he's rightful to do so, but I doubt if that's a real help or a handicap most of the time.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ekhem, people have various joysticks and various settings are required to give them a satisfaction from flying. Just because you think its not "realistic*", doesnt mean that for someone else its not crucial to be able to fly. Especially if someone has really cheap/old stick with lousy spring.

I dont consider that to be a problem that someone else can customize controls to his desire.

 

Also, what is the reason for showing your stats with 109/190 ? Because I dont see any specific relation to the problem you seem to find.

 

S!

 

*When you start "measuring" realism dont forget, that you dont sit in a cockpit of real aircraft, but you hold a short stick in your hand, cup of coffee/beer in the other and your desk cant pull any G's.

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to have similar settings before getting the length extension for my warthog. What this setting does is "virtually" extending the length of your joystick at the cost of losing amplitude.

 

I Do not really see it as cheating. On the contrary, I think it is a compromise and, if anything, is making our short joysticks behaving in a more realistic way (compared to the real planes our short joysticks become very sensitive). It is not the same as in a modern jet in wich the control is transmitted to the flying surfaces electronically so the short stick is not a problem.

 

Obviously in the more extremes settings someone could potentially have very unnatural and precise movement in the middle ranges but that would come at the cost of a very reduced amplitude of movement (as Manowar said having more problems for recovering after diving, on landings etc....).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ekhem, people have various joysticks and various settings are required to give them a satisfaction from flying. Just because you think its not "realistic*", doesnt mean that for someone else its not crucial to be able to fly. Especially if someone has really cheap/old stick with lousy spring.

I dont consider that to be a problem that someone else can customize controls to his desire.

 

Also, what is the reason for showing your stats with 109/190 ? Because I dont see any specific relation to the problem you seem to find.

 

S!

 

*When you start "measuring" realism dont forget, that you dont sit in a cockpit of real aircraft, but you hold a short stick in your hand, cup of coffee/beer in the other and your desk cant pull any G's.

 

Yes but some people claim that control stiffness for 109 should and was implemented because it's more realistic.So realism matters always or not at all.

 

Stiff controls would not be a bad thing because muscle memory and such is a lot easier developed around pressure . That's why some modern fighter sticks don't move almost at all (French Rafale)but register pressure being applied to them.But the 109 controls have a delay.

So not only that i can't lower saturation on Y to increase control for 109 .But i also can't use a curve either because the delay would get worse.

So why can't the 109 pilots that have cheap sticks use this and p51 can ? Y saturation should be always 100 like in all other simulations.


Edited by otto
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing the option in-game won't stop people from using external software to get the same effect.

 

Wouldn't the use of such software be considered a cheat for MP matches ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those settings pictured are for the rudder axis. The guy in the video is talking about why he chose he settings based on conversations with a P-51 pilot. Reducing his saturation is just reducing the maximum deflection of his rudder. In this case I don't see this as necessarily an advantage just an attempt to replicate the real rudder feel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y saturation should be always 100 like in all other simulations.

 

I'm sorry, in all other sims curves can be adjusted. Personally I used to have an imprecise short stick so I needed about 30 y saturation. Now I have a better stick so I need 10-15.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]



DCS:WWII 1944 BACKER --- Fw. 190D-9 --- Bf. 109K-4 --- P-51D --- Spitfire!

Specs: Intel i7-3770 @3.9 Ghz - NVidia GTX 960 - 8GB RAM - OCz Vertex 240GB SSD - Toshiba 1TB HDD - Corsair CX 600M Power Supply - MSI B75MA-P45 MoBo - Defender Cobra M5

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't the use of such software be considered a cheat for MP matches ?

 

That software is called Drivers. If you would consider Drivers illegal because of your presumption then I'm sorry but ... :lol:

AMD Ryzen 5900X @ 4.95 Ghz / Asus Crosshair VII X470 / 32 GB DDR4 3600 Mhz Cl16 / Radeon 6800XT / Samsung 960 EVO M.2 SSD / Creative SoundBlaster AE-9 / HP Reverb G2 / VIRPIL T-50CM /
Thrustmaster TPR Pendular Rudder Pedals / Audio Technica ATH-MSR7

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but some people claim that control stiffness for 109 should and was implemented because it's more realistic.So realism matters always or not at all.

 

Stiff controls would not be a bad thing because muscle memory and such is a lot easier developed around pressure . That's why some modern fighter sticks don't move almost at all (French Rafale)but register pressure being applied to them.But the 109 controls have a delay.

So not only that i can't lower saturation on Y to increase control for 109 .But i also can't use a curve either because the delay would get worse.

So why can't the 109 pilots that have cheap sticks use this and p51 can ? Y saturation should be always 100 like in all other simulations.

 

I think you are comparing apples to oranges.

Stiffness of controls with speed for 109 (I suppose is what you are referring to) is what happened in the real plane. Whether this has been properly implemented in the sim is another story (I do not own the 109 to check the problem).

On the other hand with the p-51, the short stick of our home joysticks gives an unrealistic (well, in my opinion) control in the mustangs as is very sensitive and twitchy to fine movements . That is mainly due to the difference in length between ours and the real stick (we have smaller arc of movement). In essence lowering Y saturation aims to emulate lengthening the joystick (and comes at a price of losing amplitude of movement on the extremes). I do not think I am cheating because I am using a length extension on my Warthog compared to anyone using the stock version one. Moreover, even with this mod in the warthog, the mustang, in the sim, still feels like a sensitive airplane in pitch movement.

 

Maybe is more a problem in the implementation of the real limitations with the 109 that an unfair advantage to the mustang.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes but some people claim that control stiffness for 109 should and was implemented because it's more realistic.So realism matters always or not at all.

 

Stiff controls would not be a bad thing because muscle memory and such is a lot easier developed around pressure . That's why some modern fighter sticks don't move almost at all (French Rafale)but register pressure being applied to them.But the 109 controls have a delay.

So not only that i can't lower saturation on Y to increase control for 109 .But i also can't use a curve either because the delay would get worse.

So why can't the 109 pilots that have cheap sticks use this and p51 can ? Y saturation should be always 100 like in all other simulations.

AFAIK all the WWII modules have the control stiffness modelled. 109 control stiffness appeared after P-51 control stiffness IIRC, so everybody is in the same position regarding stiffness. About your late assumption, "saturation is 100 in all other simulations", may be you should look better. All other simulations out there has some kind of control stiffness and various delays modelled to match some kind of comfortable controls to short stick users, all-of-them, OTOH no other simulation has modelled controls like DCS has where real control surface deflection and its exact consequences are modelled, just you can't pull whatever you want at whatever speed like happens IRL. I liked the real 100% control in 109 before stiffness was released, but I liked because I could watch my own long stick and what I move was moved exactly in cockpit so I had all the control and it was gorgeous, also had all the control to not break wing tips like people out there complained… so I can understand as far as we don't have FFB joysticks available for everybody controls stiffness is a fine compromise even though it's kinda shortage in realism using long sticks, but again not everybody uses a long stick. As you said, lowering Y saturation doesn't enhance that control stiffness, on the contrary IMO it worsens, you're loosing control, you're shortening your controls surfaces movement available, that just can't be good. So I don't see any problem in people liking to worsen their aircraft controls as far as I can still use my long stick feeling and enjoying the subtleties of the simulation short sticks can't experience, even worst with Y saturation compromise but they're rightful in trying to enhance their experience following the variety of joysticks available.

 

S!


Edited by Ala13_ManOWar

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope the 109 is quite perfect realy. I had it from my friend when that stifness was introduced. It realy is as it should.

 

 

How can anyone take this serously .

It's perfect because you or your friend have flown the 109 in real life ? :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK all the WWII modules have the control stiffness modelled. 109 control stiffness appeared after P-51 control stiffness IIRC, so everybody is in the same position regarding stiffness. About your late assumption, "saturation is 100 in all other simulations", may be you should look better. All other simulations out there has some kind of control stiffness and various delays modelled to match some kind of comfortable controls to short stick users, all-of-them, OTOH no other simulation has modelled controls like DCS has where real control surface deflection and its exact consequences are modelled, just you can't pull whatever you want at whatever speed like happens IRL. I liked the real 100% control in 109 before stiffness was released, but I liked because I could watch my own long stick and what I move was moved exactly in cockpit so I had all the control and it was gorgeous, also had all the control to not break wing tips like people out there complained… so I can understand as far as we don't have FFB joysticks available for everybody controls stiffness is a fine compromise even though it's kinda shortage in realism using long sticks, but again not everybody uses a long stick. As you said, lowering Y saturation doesn't enhance that control stiffness, on the contrary IMO it worsens, you're loosing control, you're shortening your controls surfaces movement available, that just can't be good. So I don't see any problem in people liking to worsen their aircraft controls as far as I can still use my long stick feeling and enjoying the subtleties of the simulation short sticks can't experience, even worst with Y saturation compromise but they're rightful in trying to enhance their experience following the variety of joysticks available.

 

S!

 

Im' sorry but you missed my point.

 

My point is i can decrease saturation on y for p51 and 190 and use curves for better control.

 

If i use a decrease for 109 as low as 5% i have much better control in turnfights fights but controll stiffening becomes impossible to deal with .And boom and zoom not an option unless i fly at 550 km/h which is too little. If i don't use that 5% i can't fly the plane in any kind of turnfight .But i can boom and zoom. I'm just looking to do both.

 

If i fly the p51 i can drop it as much as 40 % and i still have full control over the plane in 855 km/h dives without any problem at all.

 

In il2 bos you can't lower saturation .It's stuck at 100% .And that's what i think is fair .

 

 

@People that talk about Drivers.

If i can use a driver to improve the control of all planes but one. That does't make it fair for the people that play that plane .

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im' sorry but you missed my point.

 

My point is i can decrease saturation on y for p51 and 190 and use curves for better control.

 

If i use a decrease for 109 as low as 5% i have much better control in turnfights fights but controll stiffening becomes impossible to deal with .And boom and zoom not an option unless i fly at 550 km/h which is too little. If i don't use that 5% i can't fly the plane in any kind of turnfight .But i can boom and zoom. I'm just looking to do both.

 

If i fly the p51 i can drop it as much as 40 % and i still have full control over the plane in 855 km/h dives without any problem at all.

 

In il2 bos you can't lower saturation .It's stuck at 100% .And that's what i think is fair .

 

 

@People that talk about Drivers.

If i can use a driver to improve the control of all planes but one. That does't make it fair for the people that play that plane .

Ok, I see, didn't saw what you mean about 109. Well, I haven't tried myself because I don't need but I guess that problem in using curves in 109 has something to do with real aircraft performance, I don't think devs wanted to bother 109 users :lol:. I mean, I'm not a programmer but I'm sure devs should fake control surfaces responses to "fix" that problem using curves, so we would have a hardcore simulation no more. If Spitfire is the same as Yo-yo said time ago, so pitch control is quite sensitive like RL, we will see how curves work there (though I still don't need them).

 

About BoS, negative mate, you have some controls tweaks like noise filtering (?) and you can use curves the same as DCS, it isn't fixed at all. Just keep in mind BoS is ready to fly using keyboard, mouse and gamepads... so you can guess what I think about controls realism there :smilewink:. They are just incomparable, like comparing a play station racing game with a real ride in a formula 1 to complain real formula 1 steering wheel has crappy control (and they have indeed).

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About BoS, negative mate, you have some controls tweaks like noise filtering (?) and you can use curves the same as DCS, it isn't fixed at all. Just keep in mind BoS is ready to fly using keyboard, mouse and gamepads... so you can guess what I think about controls realism there :smilewink:. They are just incomparable, like comparing a play station racing game with a real ride in a formula 1 to complain real formula 1 steering wheel has crappy control (and they have indeed).

 

S!

 

As far as I know you can't lower Y saturation in BOS. You can set a dead zone on the ends of your joystick movement but not on the saturation of the Y axis. In DCS you can do both.

In any case, I still do not see it intrinsically as a unfair advantadge to the mustang/dora pilots (compared to 109) unless everyone could be forced to use the same equipment and peripherics. There will always be people with better joystick, longer ones etc.... It may be a disadvantage to 109 driver in this particular case but we would need to check exactly wich part of the curve you are loosing in the K4.

At extreme speeds 109 looses pitch authority so it shouldn't be affected much by lowering the Y saturation (you can't loose what you don't have). I think that should be more of a problem closer to corner speeds. On the other hand as the mustang and Dora keep more pitch authority at greater speeds they should be more affected by lowering the Y saturation. But that is mainly because they have better control at those speeds.

Would be good if some objetive test could be done to see whether there is actually a problem and its extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know you can't lower Y saturation in BOS. You can set a dead zone on the ends of your joystick movement but not on the saturation of the Y axis. In DCS you can do both.
You can tweak every axis in BoS, take a look at controls settings, click on extreme right axis icon, set your curves as you want ;) .

 

 

Yes, I would like to know what's the input zone that's screwed using a curve and why. People also says P-51 is quite easy to stall and you've to use deep curves but I never stall P-51 like that :shocking:. I've said many times, we are at the right spot where hardcore simulation means you need to use the right hardware to enjoy the full experience just like the RL stuff we're simulating. Sometimes even I think about making an even larger extension than I currently have.

 

S!

"I went into the British Army believing that if you want peace you must prepare for war. I believe now that if you prepare for war, you get war."

-- Major-General Frederick B. Maurice

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...