Autopilot or Level flight option at WW2 aircraft

4) Control feel. In sims, your stick doesn't harden up with airspeed. IRL, you fly straight and level with the tiniest movement of the stick, more like just a pressure which gives excellent feedback. This isn't easy at all in sims, where the spring force is constant, and a tiny movement which feels like nothing can make your aircraft go wild.

Wait a minute. Mine does. Well... in that other sim and its predecessors though. In DCS however the spring force is like 0 up to ~200kph and 100 at 300+ kph. Totally useless with that short range of force buildup, sadly. But alas, it's possible if being programmed decently. You just need a 20yo stick for that which is the real pain in the plot if you want some more precision and all those hat switches. VKB, please!

BTW I do like that simple "fly straight and level" cheat option AP of the other sim especially when trying to navigate by map (which is a pain in VR over there BTW because it's so pixelated). It's awesome as well to have in some situations like prolonged flights where you'd might just leave your place to get coffee or something and on top of that it also helps a lot testing the speed and acceleration performance of the planes in near-perfect conditions without any PIO, off the ball flying etc.

TL;DR: Options are always welcome! Anyone who wants to run a FR server can feel free to switch those off, noone being harmed.

I've spent enough money on flight sim gear so far this year ( with DCS in mind ) to buy a nice secondhand car. What I haven't bought I have spent hours making. Mostly with the aim of increasing the 'feeling' and realism of flight.

Do I want an autopilot in a plane that had no autopilot ? nope, no way, no how.

Do I care if other people use an autopilot in a plane that didn't have one ? no, I don't, because they are enjoying the sim in their own way - and if there is one thing I cannot stand it's people who tell other people what they can and can't do.

I wouldn't be thrilled if ED took a programmer off something I consider useful so this autopilot idea could be implemented, but that isn't any of my business.

Unless you are sitting in a perfect replica cockpit of the jet or warbird you fly, using professional grade simulator controls, mounted on a motion platform - and if forced to bail out you climb onto the roof of your house and jump off holding an umbrella - then I don't think you have a right to tell this bloke what he can and can't ask for. And even if that is the case, you still don't have the right :D

no, not all opinions are of equal worth when there is a direction to pursue

They also didn't have Rudder Helpers.....and yet....

They did not operate the rudder by twisting their stick...

Unless you are sitting in a perfect replica cockpit of the jet or warbird you fly, using professional grade simulator controls, mounted on a motion platform - and if forced to bail out you climb onto the roof of your house and jump off holding an umbrella - then I don't think you have a right to tell this bloke what he can and can't ask for. And even if that is the case, you still don't have the right :D

S!

he has the right to ask for stupid features affecting all of us? How's that? :music_whistling:

 

S!

How will it affect you, if you don't use it ?

How will it affect you, if you don't use it ?

S!

I dont think ww2 fighters had autopilots. If I remember correct, they only use trim to levelflight.

Some models of German WW2 fighters have level autopilot/course autopilot.

Fw 190 D-13 ... was fitted with all-weather flying equipment including the PKS12 and K-23 systems for steering and autopilot.

Fw 190 F-8/U4 — created as a night bomber, was equipped with flame dampers on the exhaust and various electrical systems such as the FuG 101 radio altimeter, the PKS 12 automatic pilot, and the TSA 2 A sighting system. The U4 was fitted with only two MG 151/20 cannon as fixed armament.

The Fw 190 G-3: The G-3 was based on Fw 190 A-6. Like the earlier G models, all but the two wing root mounted MG 151 cannons were removed. The new V.Fw. Trg bomb racks, however, allowed the G-3 to simultaneously carry fuel tanks and bomb loads. Because of the range added by two additional fuel tanks, the G-3's duration increased to two hours, 30 minutes. Due to this extra flight duration, a PKS 11 autopilot was fitted.

Bf 109 G-10/R6 (Bad-weather fighter with PKS 12 autopilot)

https://www.deutscheluftwaffe.de/fl-204106-knueppelgriff-kg-13r-1944-1945

Bf 110 has the Siemens LGW-Kurssteurung (used in He 111, Ju 88...)

On 6/27/2020 at 2:03 PM, jorgesoo said:

Is there an option for some kind of autopilot or level flight function for WW2 fighters.-

It should be useful at long range flights

Why, are you too lazy to fly to the battle? If it didn't have AP IRL, then no just no.

17 hours ago, rayrayblues said:

Why, are you too lazy to fly to the battle? If it didn't have AP IRL, then no just no.

Out of curiosity, how is it possible to be "lazy" while performing a recreational activity? The OP is not doing work, producing something, accepting compensation, or otherwise doing anything other than having fun. Is he not having fun hard enough? 

Why is there such arguing here? sure most aircraft in ww2 didnt have auto pilot but guess what irl most aircraft dont let you auto start with the press of a couple keys.

as said before everyone has their limitations, hence there are certain aids to help, rudder assist for those without dedicated rudder pedals, autohover for helicopters even if they lacked it IRL and 'game' flight models. something as small as having a basic heading/altitude hold would be neat.

i'm not fighter pilot but i can trim an aircraft to where it does not require me to fight it all the time while flying, but thats not to say it couldn't be useful for others so i say why not?

as long as the game doesnt become to arcade like then why would it matter.

If there were a vote on this, I would vote NO. That's because there are so many things that need fixing and ED (resp. 3rd party developers) doesn't get around to fix them.

Plus, for me this would have no value. Learning how to take off and land, and how to use the rudder in flight, is all part of the fun and excitement of flying the warbirds.

Imagine the I-16 Rata/Mosca/Ishak with pitch and rudder trim: It would be totally pointless.

That's why I never fly in Game mode. And I don't use the options Auto-Rudder and Take-off Assistance which are available for the war birds.

On 7/1/2020 at 11:47 PM, Extranajero said:

I've spent enough money on flight sim gear so far this year ( with DCS in mind ) to buy a nice secondhand car. What I haven't bought I have spent hours making. Mostly with the aim of increasing the 'feeling' and realism of flight.

 

Do I want an autopilot in a plane that had no autopilot ? nope, no way, no how.

 

Do I care if other people use an autopilot in a plane that didn't have one ? no, I don't, because they are enjoying the sim in their own way - and if there is one thing I cannot stand it's people who tell other people what they can and can't do.

 

I wouldn't be thrilled if ED took a programmer off something I consider useful so this autopilot idea could be implemented, but that isn't any of my business.

 

Unless you are sitting in a perfect replica cockpit of the jet or warbird you fly, using professional grade simulator controls, mounted on a motion platform - and if forced to bail out you climb onto the roof of your house and jump off holding an umbrella - then I don't think you have a right to tell this bloke what he can and can't ask for. And even if that is the case, you still don't have the right

As above.

Just because I personally wouldn't use an autopilot in a warbird, I don't really care if others do, as long as it doesn't impact upon me.

Sure, it might take some time to code and therefore require actual cost, but if these chaps are happy to pay for it, then go for it.

1 hour ago, Mr_sukebe said:

but if these chaps are happy to pay for it,

I don't think they want it that badly. 

First, as indicated, people complaining about an option they'd never use and telling others how they should use the sim is bothering....

Second, when you don't have the hardware to compensate for the lack of precision of trims in this sim and the lack of in-cockpit accessibility for certain tasks (which is inherent to PC simulation), this kind of option can help some people to achieve what was achieved IRL (doing some in cockpit work in turbulent weather without the aircraft fumbling all around, for example).

The willingness from certain people to enforce their vision on others when what is proposed would not interfere in their way in any form is astounding.

On 12/29/2020 at 1:54 PM, Whisper said:

The willingness from certain people to enforce their vision on others when what is proposed would not interfere in their way in any form is astounding.

Indeed, it never ceases to amaze me. Especially coming from few individuals.

I second the motion for auto level as an option.

I'm ok with it as long as it can be turned off and controlled server side for the people that don't want this sort of crap.

There's one important reason for giving a minimum "straight-and-level-option" to the users. Together with the time-compression it would offer the chance to check long-time effects on features like engine-stress, over-heating, fuel consumption etc. Given the results are the same under time-compression it would be possible to support the developers by detailed community input on that kind of questions, too. (Maybe there's a work-around for this already - if so, please give me a hint)

On 7/2/2020 at 2:44 AM, SharpeXB said:

It’s amazing that ED feels or gets feedback that they need all these “assists” like game mode, auto start, unlimited ammo and fuel. It’s like borrowing all the arcade gamey features thinking that they might scare away casual players. But those casual players are all on War Thunder. Why buy a $90 module and then press the easy keys to watch it start itself? That’s a waste of $90.

Because casual players $90 is just as valuable as hard core players $90 and in all these sims from DCS to MS Flight sim, casual players out number core players and pay the bills. Core players however visit the forums and petition hard for their desired features or strict compliance much more vocally.

What I don't understand is why they believe everyone must play the game/sim the way they do.

Every time accessibility style features are added, the potential customer base increases.

Players like myself often start out with some accessibility options enabled, then disable some over time.

Players like myself (which are the majority according to ED itself) regularly use the auto-start feature and rarely do in flight refueling because real life prevents long play sessions.  Starting an F-14 takes about 15 minutes to startup and align INS. Refuelling takes about 20 mins, yet the average game session (according to ED) is 25mins. A lot of people just want to have fun and are willing to pay for it.

I want to see as many options as possible so the most people can enjoy this game and all flight sims. I want them playing with mice, keyboards, gamepads until they upgrade to HOTAS. I want them starting easy and trying more challenging things over time. I don't want a tiny exclusive club setting up barriers for others.  Don't be afraid the developers will waste precious time on things you don't want. The will do as they please and what helps them pay the bills.

2 hours ago, DimSim said:

 

Every time accessibility style features are added, the potential customer base increases.

I don’t think casual players buy DCS. They buy Ace Combat or War Thunder. That’s why ED is making Modern Air Combat, for that market. When people are ready to move up to a more complex sim they’ll try DCS. But putting casual features especially game mode in the DCS modules is a waste of time. 

It’s not a question of casual versus hardcore... 

(and for some reason users here seem keen to relate to the highest possible status of hardcore )

it’s about accessibility and usability

That option would be nice something like auto trim for level flight. IRL trimming is much easier then here, most of us use buttons which sometimes is not possible to trim perfectly.

11 hours ago, DimSim said:

I want to see as many options as possible so the most people can enjoy this game and all flight sims...

In my 44-year career I've been involved in many complex product developments. And one lesson we learned from painful experience is: "don't try to be all things to all people". If you do, your product will become overly complex. That makes it difficult and expensive to maintain, and in the end it will become confusing for users. It's better to create target versions of the product. In this case this would mean, one for casual users that don't want to be bothered with stalls, need to trim, difficult take-off/landing, engine management and what have you, plus a full sim that really simulates "the real thing". Maybe that's what the development of "Modern Air Combat" is for. The smart thing to do would be to let people start with the "easy" version to get the hooked, and then let those who want real sim upgrade to the sim.

Right now, the "game mode" already causes confusion especially for new users because you have to make choices in 3 areas:

1. In Options you have to select or de-select game avionics mode and game flight mode

2. The same options exist in the Mission Editor, so you can have conflicting choices between missions and general settings.

3. When you edit the control bindings you have to be sure to select "Easy" or "Sim" based on how you want to play the game.

Plus there are options under "Special" like Auto-Rudder and Take-Off Assistance that you may have to de-select if you want to fly real sim.

I have also an opinion about wanting to fly a WWII fighter that handles like a modern jet fighter, but I keep that to myself.

34 minutes ago, grafspee said:

That option would be nice something like auto trim for level flight. IRL trimming is much easier then here, most of us use buttons which sometimes is not possible to trim perfectly.

It's true that many trim bindings don't work well with pushbuttons, mostly they are too "fast". In some cases I have been able to adjust the "gain" in "clickabledata.lua", but that's not a valid solution for the user community.

Rather than introducing game type options for WW II aircraft, I would like to see ED providing key bindings that work well with push buttons, plus bindings that work with rotary encoders. And of course, axis bindings at least for those aircrafts that have axis-like trim controls in reality.

Bindings also seem to be very fickle, especially between different missions / scenarios etc...

e.g. for warbirds I have a particular preference for the 3 hat switches and 6 stick buttons - one hat for views, one for trim, one for toe brakes... buttons for safety, mg, cannons, bomb release.

depending on training, mission, campaign etc either all, some or none will work.

and “hide stick” seems similarly unpredictable... so fiddling with the front dash arming switch on an Anton will have the plane corkscrewing all over the sky