Spitfire IX - Snapping those wings off

Phil, Most excellent second video! I'm going to apply those curves and tweak to get it just right for myself. I would love to see some videos of dog fights while using the newer curve settings to see if you can still maneuver the spit in a way thats appropriate during and engagement!!! Good job my friend!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

I am sure curves help that is why they are there, however I feel like they are a bit of a cheat... unless I am being rather ignorant...

According to Nick Grey, IRL 1cm of stick movement in the spit results in 6G at VNE.

the real-life stick is around 60 to 70cm in length.

We simply can't get that precision with our joysticks. Aside from buying extensions, curves are the only solution to getting near the historical.

Updated video:

Nice video phil. Still wouldn't recommend going that high with the saturation, because low speed turn performance will suffer, especially instantaneous turn performance which can be of critical importance when dogfighting the 109. (Remember, the 109 can turn almost as well as the Spit)

So, yeah definitely curves are good for people without joystick extensions and no force feedback, but muscle memory, discipline and speed awareness is better. :)

So, yeah definitely curves are good for people without joystick extensions and no force feedback, but muscle memory, discipline and speed awareness is better. :)

I don't think that being "aware" of speed, or developing muscle memory is "better".

With the Warthog (which I use), it's incredibly diffiult to get the muscle memory right.

The warhog stick is only 27cm in length.

The spitfire stick is/was 81cm in length.

Nick Grey (fighter collection) states in the comments below my video that at Vne, the spitfire will generate 6G with just 1cm of stick input. Thats a 0.7 degree stick movement.

Converting that 1cm of movement from the 81cm stick down to the warthog, this means that you can get 6G with just 3mm of stick movement at Vne.

Given that the warthog stick is quite "sticky"/ chunky, it's very easy to go well beyond 3mm of movement with only the lightest mucle input. It's also very easy to "slip" past 3mm if the stick is only slightly grippy. My warthog has about 5mm of play around the centre with almost no effort, and suddenly the friction kicks in.

Even if you are "speed aware" - (which most of us are if you've been in a steep dive for more than 5 seconds you can be sure that you are over 400mph) there's the physical requirment of having to apply between 5mm and 10mm of stick input, with a rather clunky piece of hardware.

So, for people who use a warthog (like me) without an extension, relying on muscle memory or "practice" is a large disadvantage. We should seek to even up the playing field with other methods.

Anyways, I plan to buy an extension in the next two weeks...Almost entirely as a result of this discussion! .. more money spend in simming! hahahahaha!

Fair enough, just don't let me catch you complaining in your videos how those 109s are outturning you in the Spit! ;)

Fair enough, just don't let me catch you complaining in your videos how those 109s are outturning you in the Spit! ;)

Hahaha!

I'll complain all I like, whether it's justified or not :)

loading the airframe so quickly at high airspeeds that there would be no point in the warning 'creaking' sounds as the failure would occur within a heartbeat of the sound being triggered - by the time you'd registered the sound and tried to lessen the stick force you're already too late.

...which is why it's always a good idea to apply G slowly at high speeds.

Whenever I'm pulling out of a dive in the Spit, I use outside references to very loosely determine G through pitch rate and airspeed.

To me this discussion is all kind of silly. You do not read accounts of Spitfire pilots constantly having to baby the plane to avoid breaking the wings. In contrast in DCS it is trivially easy to snap the wings off and you have to be constantly mindful of it. Therefore as far as I'm concerned DCS is wrong, flat and simple. You cannot fly the plane in DCS the same as it was flown in real life ...

In order to give realistic behaviour the sim needs to give the player more warning that they are exceeding the limits of the plane. That definitely means feedback like creaking noises and shaking or something. It may also mean not letting the player suddenly apply huge deflections to the stick at high speed (it's not very realistic anyway, the stick gets really heavy). For example, at high speed the game could always apply any requested stick deflection gradually, simulating the physical limits of the pilot. I would much rather see unrecoverable dives (a real phenomena) rather than accidentally shearing the wings off (which as far as I know almost never happened). It could also mean not breaking the wings until the player has had fair warning ... But clearly the situation that philsyle shows in his videos where you are doing 400 odd mph and then pull up a bit hard and the wings come off, is plain ridiculous and IMO really damages DCS's claims to realism.

There is a pretty long thread where Yo-Yo explains why it was modeled like this. Realism has to suffer here, because we don't have realistic force feedback joysticks. (Most don't even have regular FFB joysticks). It's like saying DCS is not realistic because you can't feel the G-forces on your body. Unfortunately this is true of all sims, and is a limiting factor to our enjoyment.

Sure some kind of system could be implemented that dampens pilot inputs, but then you basically have a modern fly by wire system in a WWII aeroplane.

Is that somehow more realistic?

Silly?

Just because a set of arguements does not meet your preconceived idea or a convenient truth that you hold does not make it silly, far from it.

I suggest you do some more research on the ACTUAL record of Spitfire elevator control forces, authority and evidence of wing structural failures under G. I assure you there are is anecdotal evidence that mentions Spitfire pilots being very circumpsect in high speed dive recovery.

As per usual when there are a multitude of differing influences causing this issue it seems instead of listening to the various issues, investigating them, and then discussing the varities of possible corrective actions, there are people out there whom just seem to want to shout "it's broken! You must fix it!"

Why?

Because it's easier. God forbid that you might be doing something wrong, overcontrolling for example , or you are not monitoring your airspeed attentively, or you haven't tuned your stick settings to give you the best compromise between sensitivity and controllability for your own stick.

Crikey, that might mean some effort and practise on your part. Heavens!

You must spread some REP before giving it again to DD_Fenrir. :)

Well said.

I extended my THW stick with an about 30 cm pipe, but it's still more than twice shorter than the real thing in the Spit :D. Thus I still use a little bit (10%) of curvature to compensate, so that gunnery is easier.

Back on the subject - I've read many times that DCS nowadays was supposed to record cumulative damage from subsequent high G, lowering the structural limit somewhat during every manoeuvre. Anyone knows (or tested) if it's been actually implemented to warbirds as well?

It's my OPINION, as I clearly state in the post: To me this discussion is all kind of silly ... and IMO really damages DCS's claims to realism. From talking to people on public servers about this issue, it seems most people have this opinion and people complain about it all of the time.

I completely agree with OnlyForDCS: every solution is wrong. The current solution is wrong, and my suggestion is also wrong. DCS can't actually impose realistic stick forces on the player, therefore whatever approach is chosen is, at best, an approximation. Such is the way of simulation.

Not that this situation is all that unusual. For example a very closely related example is "control stiffening", at high speeds the controls can become unresponsive. In some planes this is more pronounced than others, giving the planes that remain controllable at high-speed a (realistic) advantage. DCS can't simulate control stiffening directly ... so it simulates it indirectly. The player moves their stick a certain amount ... but at higher speeds the control column in the plane might moves less, simulating the difficulty that the pilot has with the heavy stick. You can call it a "modern fly-by-wire system" if you like, but this is how it works in DCS today.

The essence of my suggestion is just that control stiffening should also effect how quickly the pilot can move the stick, as well as limiting the extent to which they can move it. After all, if it's heavy it should be hard to move it quickly. If we're going to simulate one aspect of control stiffening, why not simulate both?

... and IMO really damages DCS's claims to realism.

I fail to see how; the discussion revolves around peoples perception that Spit snaps wings at a drop of a hat without warning, with the other side presenting the reasons as to why they may be experiencing this more frequently and the measures they can take to mitigate it's effects through a) understanding of the Spitfires actual characteristics and behaviour and how it's reflected in the sim, b) better understanding and implementation of the customisable controller settings and c) better understanding of the riskier areas of the flight envelope and cultivate an awareness of the practises that will enable them to avoid over stressing the airframe in these situation.

How does this damage EDs claim to realism?

From talking to people on public servers about this issue, it seems most people have this opinion and people complain about it all of the time.

Irrelevant; if you are breaking wings regularly then you either a) do not have your stick settings optimised b) are pitching too aggressively in the danger area or c) both!

I completely agree with OnlyForDCS: every solution is wrong. The current solution is wrong, and my suggestion is also wrong. DCS can't actually impose realistic stick forces on the player, therefore whatever approach is chosen is, at best, an approximation. Such is the way of simulation.

For once we agree - unless you have FFB enabled full scale sticks then this will always be a compromise, but there are the custom stick setting tools to mitigate, balance or get around some of the dimensional issues; the issue of accurately representing airload on control surfaces via force feedback will always be problematic.

However ED cannot be blamed for this; you may as well complain that your 24" monitor doesn't give an accurate representation of peripheral vision for all they can do!

Not that this situation is all that unusual. For example a very closely related example is "control stiffening", at high speeds the controls can become unresponsive. In some planes this is more pronounced than others, giving the planes that remain controllable at high-speed a (realistic) advantage. DCS can't simulate control stiffening directly ... so it simulates it indirectly. The player moves their stick a certain amount ... but at higher speeds the control column in the plane might moves less, simulating the difficulty that the pilot has with the heavy stick. You can call it a "modern fly-by-wire system" if you like, but this is how it works in DCS today.

This then is the problematic airload question; then a further question of how strong is our virtual pilot?

And who's to say Ed have it wrong? What evidence do you have that the Spitfire elevator should stiffen under airload so significantly that it prevents over-G loading by the pilot? Evidence! You have none! And given that I read many, many reports to the contrary of your opinion, it would be unrealistic to add such a thing - it would be a sop to those who don't like being punished for not a) taking the time to learn the aircraft's limits or b) spending some valuable time understanding and setting up their joystick curves properly.

The essence of my suggestion is just that control stiffening should also effect how quickly the pilot can move the stick, as well as limiting the extent to which they can move it. After all, if it's heavy it should be hard to move it quickly. If we're going to simulate one aspect of control stiffening, why not simulate both?

It already does. Watch Philstyles part 2 video again. Watch the diamond indicator particularly on 2nd the 20% control saturation run. Watch how far the diamond moves when he says he is making a ~60% controller displacement. It moves all of 10-15% by my reckoning. ITS MODELLED.

It's just not modelled to make up for your heavy handedness or over sensitive control setup.

Again this boils down to the main sufferers of this issue have not a) taking the time to learn the aircraft's limits or b) spend some valuable time understanding and setting up their joystick curves properly.

Common theme emerging here.

Of course it's just simpler to make it ED's fault and tell them their flight models 'porked'. And with such resounding evidence to back up their claims too.

It already does. Watch Philstyles part 2 video again. Watch the diamond indicator particularly on 2nd the 20% control saturation run. Watch how far the diamond moves when he says he is making a ~60% controller displacement. It moves all of 10-15% by my reckoning. ITS MODELLED.

Well logically it'd be 12%, since that's 20% of 60%. As far as I can determine the controls window only shows the position of the controls, and how the curves affect it, not the effect on the elevator.

Control stiffening is modelled, this acts as a limit to how far the player can deflect the stick at high airspeeds. However, the issue as I see it is that there is no restriction on how quickly you can reach that limit. It seems you can go from stick neutral to the full limit of the control stiffening (i.e. the full limit of human strength) in an instant. It's like the control stiffening keeps the controls within a certain "box", however you can move the controls within that box as fast as you like. Because of that you can instantly apply enough strength to shear the wings off. This is highly unrealistic, a real human pilot does not function that way.

I would argue the modelling of control stiffening is incomplete: it only models one aspect of the pilot's strength (the maximum amount they can deflect the stick) but not the other aspect (how quickly they can reach that maximum). Because of this incomplete modelling the result is the "silly" (i.e. unrealistic) sort of situation you see in game where players are snapping their wings much too frequently. The fact that you can learn to avoid it (and I have by the way), doesn't mean that it's not unrealistic.

Question- was this ever a complication in flight during actual wartime? Or is this merely a discussion of gameplay?:huh:

Question- was this ever a complication in flight during actual wartime? Or is this merely a discussion of gameplay?:huh:

In would say this issue is 99% about simming, and how control surfaces from so many aircraft tpyes (from modern strike jets down to warbirds) are modlled into the same software package.

In real life, each aircraft has its own dedicated controls that were tested rigorously for that airframe.

For sims, the software has to account for a myriad of user controllers and aircraft types all at once.

In would say this issue is 99% about simming, and how control surfaces from so many aircraft tpyes (from modern strike jets down to warbirds) are modlled into the same software package.

In real life, each aircraft has its own dedicated controls that were tested rigorously for that airframe.

For sims, the software has to account for a myriad of user controllers and aircraft types all at once.

Thanks for your response phil- I've watched a few of your videos on the Spitfire, and they have helped me greatly. Thank you for your insight. I am new to to simming, and no pilot. I have a LOT to learn...:book:

You know, the issue would be less pronounced if we had compression on the virtual stick like the old 109 had in beta.

In would say this issue is 99% about simming, and how control surfaces from so many aircraft tpyes (from modern strike jets down to warbirds) are modlled into the same software package.

In real life, each aircraft has its own dedicated controls that were tested rigorously for that airframe.

For sims, the software has to account for a myriad of user controllers and aircraft types all at once.

This is a little bit of an oversimplification phil. I fly both Warbirds and the modern jets in DCS. All of them have extremely accurate control systems modeling. Whether by cables, hydraulics, fly by wire or some combination of all three, depending on the airframe in question.

The Spitfire's controls are very accurately modeled. What is impossible to model is the strength and speed with which any individual pilot can pull on the control column. That is left up to us, our hardware and the way we can set up our controls with curves and such.

By all accounts the elevators of the real Spit were very light in the pitch axis, and this was one of the endearing qualities of the real Spitfires. Most WW2 pilots note in their accounts that they didn't have to fight the controls as much in the Spit as in other planes of the era. This made the Spit very easy to fly when maneuvering.

Does this mean that it was possible to pull the wings of the real spitfire? I don't think we will ever know. Im sure that no one tried to do it on purpose :) In any case most pilots were probably trained to know the limits of their airframes and not to exceed them.

I guess what Im trying to say is why whine and complain, when you can fly and train? :)

I guess what Im trying to say is why whine and complain, when you can fly and train? :)

Whoose complaining and whining?

(Incidentally; this is the second time you've sugegsted/ accused me of complaining or whining in two seperate threads now).

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the way DCS has implemented this IMO. Allowing custom input/ saturation curves was the way to go, which DCS have done.

I'm simply suggesting a controls setup (using the tools that DCS has provided) that works for me and might work for others too, with the hardware I have.

There is ample evidence from my vidoes that I've put a LOT of time into this "fly and train"... the repeated tests (with the effect of each change in control setup) are all there for folks to see.

This humorous comment was not directed at you phil. (And the first one was a joke) You are one of the rare people in this thread who believes that the Spit is modelled correctly.

Sorry if it came out that way.

This humorous comment was not directed at you phil. (And the first one was a joke) You are one of the rare people in this thread who believes that the Spit is modelled correctly.

Sorry if it came out that way.

Ooops, sorry mate!

I'm an idiot...