Anybody else notice some significant changes to the way the K-4 handles

Let's start from the basic rule of thumb for all simulations that want to be claimed as real: to have POSITION related controls but not the force related. The reason is that 100% of available game controllers can not provide sufficient loading even close to real controls, so we have to watch travel more likely than force. In the real plane you always use both.

And now imagine, that you enter a maximal AoA turn at high speed with compressed input. To get the limit you have to pull the joystick to its rear limit having the rate of turn increasing. As your speed bleeds, you need to progressively release the stick MOVING it forward to avoid stall, that is real nonsense in RL.

So, the compressing interferes with your input, even if you do not get the limits - as you are at high speed area, your input is being modulated, that ruins your control.

 

Thanks for the explanation. I follow the logic behind doing it this way.

 

Through axis curves we have the ability to add compression back into the controls? Personally, while I'm flying it helps me to think of my stick movements as force applied to the controls not actual displacement of the controls. This due to the extremely limited travel of the stick I use compared to the real thing. I feel like using compression of the inputs matches this style more (my virtual "fly be the seat of your pants" approach:joystick:).

 

Either way, as long as the approach is similar across all aircraft I will be happy and adjust accordingly.

 

 

Thank you very much for your kind words!

 

Anyway, I need to clear things up regarding the terms.

 

When I mention compression I mean it exactly as a sound engineering term:

Out = K x Inp, where K is changing much slower than a signal.

 

Clipping means clipping.... horrifying an electrical engineer but pleasant for a guitar player.

Out = minmax(lowlim, Inp, highlim)

 

:beer: I just died hahahaha. Thanks Yo-Yo!

Edited September 16, 2016 by Integrals

great explanation. makes sense. thank you very much!

Just to be clear. 109 is still going to loose control at high speeds but instead of scaling the stick travel, now the travel is going to be the same all the time but will not go over certain max deflection points?

That is correct.

 

What I'm interested in is how much, if any, did the maximum control limit change.

Edited September 16, 2016 by Integrals

Thanks for the explanation. I follow the logic behind doing it this way.

 

Through axis curves we have the ability to add compression back into the controls? Personally, while I'm flying it helps me to think of my stick movements as force applied to the controls not actual displacement of the controls. This due to the extremely limited travel of the stick I use compared to the real thing. I feel like using compression of the inputs matches this style more (my virtual "fly be the seat of your pants" approach:joystick:).

 

Either way, as long as the approach is similar across all aircraft I will be happy and adjust accordingly.

 

:beer: I just died hahahaha. Thanks Yo-Yo!

 

Ditto... I fly similarly and I'm not concerned if I can mix it out...

Has there been any changes with the recent patch? The aircraft still feels different.

 

-SLACK

I of course started to adjust and my aim got better. If this is permanent then it will take a lot of new muscle memory to get back to smooth flying.

 

You're right about building new muscle memory. I tried it first time today. Couldn't hit a thing. Tried using curve and started hitting again, but there's still a delay in the controls above 350 or 400 ,even more obvious when pushing negative g.And at least in my case the curve makes the delay feel worse.

I'm pretty sure when I pull weight I do not pull 30kg as fast as 10kg, if anything ED should have kept the old slowed stick movement plus a hard limit.

 

Hitting the gym for 5 minutes give you all the evidences you need.

 

And let's forget that your body is feeling several times heavier as you pull Gs.

Edited September 18, 2016 by GrapeJam

The limits are about 30 kg for precise control, more than twice - for emergency pulling, but in this range the control simulates reduced accuracy due to extreme loading.

What about the G force influence on how the body is capable of pulling such heavy weight. And are we sure 30kg allows for precise control even without G forces? I mean, we are talking about pulling on a stick in a confined space of the 109 cockpit which doesn't allow for full arm travel.

 

 

 

I am not saying its impossible to pull that much, but I am saying that its quite hard to believe you can pull precisely up to 30kg, especially that G forces start to work against you.

 

PS. What do you mean by 30kg. Kilograms of force kgf or kp?

Edited September 18, 2016 by Solty

Gym analogy won't do, as You pull the constant weight there from initial position, while in the plane you don't.

 

Anyway, it's a neverending flight-sims problem of whether the physical stick should control either force or position of virtual one. No easy solution for that issue, though It's important to stick to a single standard across all planes in the sim, which If I understood correctly, was not the case before the update.

 

I don't understand, however, the last Yo-Yo's post - there are two pilot's force limits? How does that work?

Talk about muscle memory! My arm really hurts after flying the BF-109, but then again, what a joy to fly. I'm fine with how it is now but I do feel for the argument that you would pull slower when under heavier load. There should be a minimal but exponential delay function (thus compression) in the formula.

The limits are about 30 kg for precise control, more than twice - for emergency pulling, but in this range the control simulates reduced accuracy due to extreme loading.

 

Can you confirm that this limit is the same (or is planned to become the standard) across all aircraft?

 

I'm also assuming this is only for forces applied to the stick as I could see max rudder input being much much higher if necessary... care to share that number (if there is one?) as well?

 

Thanks for sharing!

 

 

 

Anyway, it's a neverending flight-sims problem of whether the physical stick should control either force or position of virtual one. No easy solution for that issue, though It's important to stick to a single standard across all planes in the sim, which If I understood correctly, was not the case before the update.

 

I don't understand, however, the last Yo-Yo's post - there are two pilot's force limits? How does that work?

 

Personally I think it has to take into account both... If the goal is to simulate the behavior or the aircraft as realistically as possible ignoring the amount of force a human could actually apply to the controls is ignoring a huge part of the equation. Without some physical limits on control inputs we would be able to do impossible things (potentially). The key (to me) is that the approach to the problem is consistent across all aircraft.

 

 

While on the topic: I recently watched a video of a IJN pilot discussing how they attacked B-29s. In a nutshell they went into a nearly vertical dive and my impression was they tried to hit the cockpit to disable the aircraft. He said that pulling out of the dive was completely exhausting and my impression was that they were only able to physically perform this attack once.

 

Well, I will just let you watch it for yourself (all 3 parts are worth the watch)

 

 

slightly off topic, but he talks a little about performance and tactics in part 1:

Edited September 18, 2016 by Integrals

What interests me the most is how for example is it possible for a 109 pilot to use 30kg of force on aileron if the stick travel blocks it at 18kg. Let me quote one thing:

 

 

Reference: The Best of the Breed by Col. "Kit" Carson Airpower, July 1976 Vol. 6 No. 4.

 

"Fighting Qualities:

 

A series of mock dogfights were conducted by the British in addition to the flight test and the following was revealed:

 

If the airplane was trimmed for level flight, a heavy push on the stick was needed to hold it in a dive at 400 mph. If it was trimmed into the dive, recovery was difficult unless the trim wheel was wound back, due to the excessive heaviness of the elevator forces.

 

 

Ailerons:

 

At low speeds, the ailerons control was good, response brisk. As speed increased the ailerons became too heavy but the response was good up to 200 mph. At 300 mph they became "unpleasant". Over 300 mph they became impossible. At 400 mph the stick felt like it was set in a bucket of cement. A pilot exerting all his strength could not apply more than one fifth aileron at 400 mph; that's 5 degrees up and 3 degrees down. The aileron situation at high combat speeds might be summarized in the following way:

 

 

 

• (1) Due to the cramped cockpit a pilot could only apply about 40 pounds side force on the stick as compared to 60 pounds or more possible if he had more elbow room.
  
• ​(2) Messerschmitt also penalized the pilot by designing in an unsually small stick top travel of plus or minus 4 inches, giving very poor mechanical advantage between pilot and aileron.
  
• (3) At 400 mph with 40 pounds side force and only one fifth aileron displaced, it required 4 seconds to get into a 45 degree roll or bank. That immediately classifies the airplane as being unmaneuverable and unacceptable as a fighter.
  

 

 

​Elevator:

 

This was a good control at slow speeds but became too heavy above 250 mph and at 400 mph it became so heavy that maneurverability became seriously restricted. When diving at 400 mph a pilot, pulling very hard could not pull enough "g" force to black himself out. The stick force per "g" was an excess of 20 pounds in a high speed dive. To black out, as a limit to the human factor in high speed maneuvers, would require over 100 pounds pull on the stick.

 

 

Rudder:

 

At low speeds the rudder was light, but sluggish in response. At 200 mph the sluggishness disappears, at 300 mph the absense of trim control in the cockpit became an acute problem. The pilot's leg force on the port rudder above 300 mph to prevent sideslip became excessive and unacceptable.

 

 

Control Harmony:

 

At low speed, below 250 mph, control harmony was good, only a little spoiled by the suggishness of the rudder. At higher speeds the aileron and elevator forces were so high that the word "harmony" is inappropriate."

TLDR

So according to that, the pilot is not able to black himself out at speed range of 400mph (roughly 640kph) and above.

 

Ailerons are inefective at high speeds and pilot is capable of using only 40 pounds of force on the stick because of the bad ergonomics of the cockpit.

40pounds (around 18kg)

 

Rudder control is sluggish. But we have K4 which has a flettner so that should be easier at high speeds.

Edited September 18, 2016 by Solty

I thought that the aircraft used were damaged goods, and so you know can any of it be trusted

I thought that the aircraft used were damaged goods, and so you know can any of it be trusted

Sure. Except other, even modern pilots have very similar experiences with the airplane. Some like it more, some like it less for what it is. But it is what it is. German pilots that had the ability to have a contrast between Fw190 and Bf109 or other airplanes have very similar experience as well.

 

Each airplane has its limitations. If we look at roll rate compared to the Typhoon, you would say its "pretty good" but you have Fw190, P-51 and P47 to compare to and many other aircraft that have their own limitations.

 

If we take the P-51D which has good aileron control at medium and high speed ranges but it doesn't allow for such a good aileron control as the 109 at low speeds and is nowhere close in midspeed ranges to the awesome rolling Fw190.

 

Design limitations are what make aircraft unique and amazing. Thats why pilots say that you do not fly modern jets, just operate them. Thats because they all feel the same as they do not have those limitations of the old school era airplanes.

 

I don't mind my P-51D beeing average turner at low speeds and having a pretty underwhelming roll rate at those speed ranges. Thats how P-51D is, and I am ok with that I am also ok with bad control when the fuel feuselage tank is full. Me109 should be treated the same way it has its share of advantages, its easy to produce, small (little drag), good gun platform with very good ROC and quite good low speed handling, but it lacks high speed maneuvrability that SOME other airplanes have.

 

Again if you compare it to Yak1, Typhoon, Zero or LaGG3, it will have some better control capabilities and will loose in other aspects. Because design cannot be perfect.

 

Either you like the aircraft for what it is, or you want it something that it isn't.:huh:

Edited September 19, 2016 by Solty

Different Plane

 

After 2-weeks in Corsica (and no computer) I went to the forum first and looked through this thread. So fortunately I was forwarned. Then I launched DCS and let it update. My first attempt to takeoff ended with a crash and the next attempt was successful in the end albeit not nice. Landing was another challenge and it took me 3 attempts before I could land without damage.

My first attempts at dogfighting an AI P-51D was challenging again as the response to controls is totally different, and only the superior enginge power saved me several times from being shot down, as the response to any manoeuvre is vastly different from before the update. I managed a kill in the end but it will be a while before I dare going to multi-player again.

In real life, pilots had to adapt to new versions of the fighter from time to time; thats's normal and I enjoy the new challenge that this creates. But I'm sure they were briefed about any changes in behaviour before they mounted the new kite. My only criticism to ED is that they did not issue a very visible warning to the user community, telling us what has changed and how the changes affect the handling of the fighter.

This is what I call pro-active and customer-friendly communication.

I noticed some changes that feel like bugs and I will post my comments on those separately.

Apparent bugs

 

I encountered three apparent bugs:

1. Elevator trim

I use the axis command via the slider (JOY_SLIDER1) on my TM Warthog throttle. Previously, slider fully forward gave me full positive trim (+2) , and when I moved it backwards the trim would respond immediately by reducing the trim value. Now, the max trim is reached with the slider about 50 t0 60 % forward. In order to use the full mechanical range of the slider I had to set a curvature of -21%. This is not a solution but a work-around.

2. Radiator control

I used to leave it in the "Auto" position and it would control the temperature to about the middle between the two markers. Now in Auto the temperature is controlled to 90 °C even under continued light load (level flight at 2,400 m altitude, 500 km/h IAS, 1.2 bar manifold pressure). This seems wrong. As a precaution I now set the radiator valve to "Open" before any major load inncrease like in a dogfight, but I'm not sure it's the right thing to do. And again, this is not a solution but a work-around.

3. Flaps

Flaps do not extend beyond 30° any more. Previously the flaps extended to 40° (I believe) and I could see a red line when they were fully extended. I cannot get to seeing the red line any more. This might actually contribute to the changed landing behaviour.

3. Flaps

Flaps do not extend beyond 30° any more. Previously the flaps extended to 40° (I believe) and I could see a red line when they were fully extended. I cannot get to seeing the red line any more. This might actually contribute to the changed landing behaviour.

 

That I cannot confirm, as each time I land I get max flap, including red line, still.

I'm pretty sure when I pull weight I do not pull 30kg as fast as 10kg, if anything ED should have kept the old slowed stick movement plus a hard limit.

 

Hitting the gym for 5 minutes give you all the evidences you need.

 

And let's forget that your body is feeling several times heavier as you pull Gs.

 

That's not what Happens in the game.In the game i can move the 30kg(weight doesn't matter because my plastick joystick weighs nothing) with my real stick instantly and than have to wait up to 5 seconds for the virtual on(the one that actually moves the plane to arrive to the same position).I think the only way to find a solution is to get a ffb stick.

 

What about the G force influence on how the body is capable of pulling such heavy weight. And are we sure 30kg allows for precise control even without G forces? I mean, we are talking about pulling on a stick in a confined space of the 109 cockpit which doesn't allow for full arm travel.

 

 

 

I am not saying its impossible to pull that much, but I am saying that its quite hard to believe you can pull precisely up to 30kg, especially that G forces start to work against you.

 

PS. What do you mean by 30kg. Kilograms of force kgf or kp?

 

The cockpit was designed this way so that the pilot could take aim when doing acrobatic flying and doesn't rattle around in the cockpit.I don't know if G forces,innertia acting on pilot head is simulated in DCS .If you play Clod it gives you an idea what that's like.

Edited September 19, 2016 by otto

@Otto, and that design choice comes with consequence. The pilot is more stable but looses the ergonomics of other aircraft.

Edited September 19, 2016 by Solty

@Otto, and that design choice comes with consequence. The pilot is more stable but looses the ergonomics of other aircraft.

 

Yes of course.

The cockpit was designed this way so that the pilot could take aim when doing acrobatic flying and doesn't rattle around in the cockpit.I don't know if G forces,innertia acting on pilot head is simulated in DCS .If you play Clod it gives you an idea what that's like.

AFAIK 109 was designed to be the smallest aircraft possible around the biggest engine that could fit in there, and small means small everything so cockpit also. So I don't know where you found that explanation as your head usually hit the cockpit lid easier when wrapped like that in 109 and yeah, your head hitting the walls is the ultimate comfort :music_whistling:.

 

 

S!

For me nothing is different about takeoffs and landings. The "keep the ball centered" rule still works and prevents me from mishaps, as it should. Flaps and trim work as previously as well, but I admit I have them assigned to switches, 'cause I didn't think short throw of Warthog throttle slider was good enough for these. If there is some issue with how they work when assigned to rotaries/axes, that should be reported, but I'd suggest doing it in "bugs" section, as such an observation will get lost amongst numerous posts over here.

AFAIK 109 was designed to be the smallest aircraft possible around the biggest engine that could fit in there, and small means small everything so cockpit also. So I don't know where you found that explanation as your head usually hit the cockpit lid easier when wrapped like that in 109 and yeah, your head hitting the walls is the ultimate comfort :music_whistling:.

 

 

S!

 

You were probably there when they designed it .

 

Min 13:13:

 

 

It's mentioned in publications too.

 

Back on topic .I think this version and the previous one are big improvements IMHO, even i need time to get used to the difference.

Edited September 19, 2016 by otto