Experienced BF-109 pilots - help needed - right roll level flight - Page 8 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-05-2019, 12:06 AM   #71
wolfstriked
Member
 
wolfstriked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 409
Default

Manowar, that is my point for tight controls and noone understands.The tighter the contros the more linear u can run it.I put crosswinds at tightest spring and can dive towards target and place bullets on each side with ease.Light springs and its always spray and pray.
__________________
"Its easy,place the pipper on target and bombs away."

i7-8700k/GTX 1080ti/VKB-GladiatorPRO/VKB-T-rudder Pedals/Saitek X55 throttle
wolfstriked is offline  
Old 04-05-2019, 03:59 AM   #72
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,001
Default

Tighter springs are just the thing if you're using a high quality stick such as the Warthog. With a common garden variety cheapo stick however, no go. You'll need light springs and some curves with those.

And the difference is indeed profound. I'm using a beat-to-crap T-Hotas set here, and keeping it well lubricated with light springs and some curves dialled in, it behaves well enough. But I was recently over at friend's a couple of weeks ago helping him setting up the DCS Dora and tried my usual setup with his Warthog - and let me tell you, it was bloody ridiculous! The amount of curves I set up just completely murdered the responsivity because the feel and the overall stability (for want of a better word) of that thing is so much better.

So it depends, but with a high quality controller even without an extension, you really don't seem to need any gimmicks because it behaves well enough as is. Just my £0.002 though, but this is what I found out.
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147
msalama is offline  
Old 04-05-2019, 08:14 PM   #73
Ala13_ManOWar
Senior Member
 
Ala13_ManOWar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Spain
Posts: 1,848
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfstriked View Post
Manowar, that is my point for tight controls and noone understands.The tighter the contros the more linear u can run it.I put crosswinds at tightest spring and can dive towards target and place bullets on each side with ease.Light springs and its always spray and pray.
Yep, a hard enough controls prevent overcommand and makes the trick, just like so many RL aircraft (not all of them though). That's where I got the idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
Tighter springs are just the thing if you're using a high quality stick such as the Warthog. With a common garden variety cheapo stick however, no go. You'll need light springs and some curves with those.

And the difference is indeed profound. I'm using a beat-to-crap T-Hotas set here, and keeping it well lubricated with light springs and some curves dialled in, it behaves well enough. But I was recently over at friend's a couple of weeks ago helping him setting up the DCS Dora and tried my usual setup with his Warthog - and let me tell you, it was bloody ridiculous! The amount of curves I set up just completely murdered the responsivity because the feel and the overall stability (for want of a better word) of that thing is so much better.

So it depends, but with a high quality controller even without an extension, you really don't seem to need any gimmicks because it behaves well enough as is. Just my £0.002 though, but this is what I found out.
I completely agree, with a good enough setting you can have a good control in the sim. Just, people should realise what they are trying to mimic with regard to real aircraft controls and search for their best comfort. Curves are there to be used of course.

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
Ala13_ManOWar is offline  
Old 04-06-2019, 09:01 AM   #74
wolfstriked
Member
 
wolfstriked's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: NYC
Posts: 409
Default

Yes,the tighter the stick the more you can rely on tension to change the axis movement.I don't even think stick extensions are necessary if you have a very tight stick that is also able to read extremely small changes in movement.


I use a warbrd stick but I have no stick and just use the base.This means its very tight to move the stick and for me DCS just feels way better.I cant wait for their new gimbal to start shipping as it will have a new cam/spring setup where instead of extension springs it will use compression springs which allow stronger springs to be installed.This hopefully will allow me to run an actual stick on the base.


Hoping for this!!!
__________________
"Its easy,place the pipper on target and bombs away."

i7-8700k/GTX 1080ti/VKB-GladiatorPRO/VKB-T-rudder Pedals/Saitek X55 throttle
wolfstriked is offline  
Old 04-24-2019, 09:06 PM   #75
pmiceli
Member
 
pmiceli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 129
Default

I find the DCS prop fighters far too mellow when it comes to engine torque. The 109 is the better modeled of the two I own but I think it is far too milquetoast. It feels like a Cessna 210 in torque.

Every airplane requires you fly it all the time. There are some that you can carefully adjust the trim and get them to stay relatively stable for a few minutes in very smooth air but absent an autopilot you have to fly all the time, even if it is just with the rudders while your hands are busy with something else.

The bigger they are the easier they are in this respect. More mass to be displaced means more stability through the air mass.

The 109 is a very small airplane with a big engine. It would definitely require attention. And torque would be very obvious.

Those using modern pilot descriptions must remember they are absolutely NOT treating the airplanes like combat machines. Power applications are very slow, as he says in the video and they never get close to war time emergency power levels. If you fly them like that, they are pussycats. Fly them to the edge slamming the throttle stop to stop in a desperate fight and you have a different breed of cat altogether.
__________________
www.475FG.com
Member Forum: http://www.satansangels.activeboard.com/

pmiceli is offline  
Old 04-25-2019, 07:21 AM   #76
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,001
Default

Quote:
far too mellow when it comes to engine torque
We've been through this before and AFAIR I asked you whether your controllers in any way replicate the feel, response and stiffness of those of the real machines. You never replied, but accused Yo-Yo of wanting to be right instead, yet regardless of you yourself feeling that you're 100% right, never presented any tangible evidence of this being off-kilter. So let's begin again: how realistic are your controllers and how are they set up?
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147

Last edited by msalama; 04-25-2019 at 12:01 PM.
msalama is offline  
Old 04-25-2019, 09:21 AM   #77
birdstrike
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Posts: 351
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmiceli View Post
I find the DCS prop fighters far too mellow when it comes to engine torque. The 109 is the better modeled of the two I own but I think it is far too milquetoast. It feels like a Cessna 210 in torque.

Every airplane requires you fly it all the time. There are some that you can carefully adjust the trim and get them to stay relatively stable for a few minutes in very smooth air but absent an autopilot you have to fly all the time, even if it is just with the rudders while your hands are busy with something else.

The bigger they are the easier they are in this respect. More mass to be displaced means more stability through the air mass.

The 109 is a very small airplane with a big engine. It would definitely require attention. And torque would be very obvious.

Those using modern pilot descriptions must remember they are absolutely NOT treating the airplanes like combat machines. Power applications are very slow, as he says in the video and they never get close to war time emergency power levels. If you fly them like that, they are pussycats. Fly them to the edge slamming the throttle stop to stop in a desperate fight and you have a different breed of cat altogether.

pretty much what u say. prop birds in dcs could need an FM update.
birdstrike is offline  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:41 AM   #78
grafspee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,029
Default

for me handling warbirs is preaty hard enough and the tourqe effect is very noticable especialy when flying slow. i very often use full rudder to counter tourqe effects in slow dogfights
slaming throttle from 0 to max is not healthy for engine any way so even in dogfight i move throttle slowly especialy when starting from 0 you have to give some time to let gavernor kick in.
its is very dangerous moment when prop make transition form windmiling to pulling once gavernor kick in i move thottle more rapidly.

Last edited by grafspee; 04-25-2019 at 11:48 AM.
grafspee is offline  
Old 04-25-2019, 11:57 AM   #79
msalama
Veteran
 
msalama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,001
Default

Quote:
pretty much what u say.
Pretty much what you guys feel. Given the myriad amount of wildly different controllers out there, I'm not at all sure this is the general truth.

However, if you can present unequivocal evidence supporting - or even better, proving - this, I'll then of course believe you and join you in requesting an FM change.
__________________
Huey probs & gripes? Do read the following please: https://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.p...1&d=1555258147

Last edited by msalama; 04-25-2019 at 12:04 PM.
msalama is offline  
Old 04-25-2019, 12:13 PM   #80
pmiceli
Member
 
pmiceli's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Posts: 129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by msalama View Post
We've been through this before and AFAIR I asked you whether your controllers in any way replicate the feel, response and stiffness of those in the real machines. You never replied, but accused Yo-Yo of wanting to be right instead, yet regardless of you yourself feeling that you're 100% right, you never present any tangible evidence of this really being off-kilter. So let's begin again: how realistic are your controllers and how are they set up?
A basic understanding of physics is all that is required to figure out that torque is seriously undermodeled in DCS prop driven aircraft.

In a single engine high performance WWII fighter with a nose mounted engine, there is a large, high horsepower engine swinging a large propeller.

Varying the revolutions per minute of this power package will, as a matter of some very basic physical laws, vary the control inputs required.

The larger the ratio between the power capability and the mass of the aircraft, the more pronounced the effect is.

Control deflection required to counter engine torque is inversely proportional to airspeed. At some minimum airspeed for a given power setting, control deflection is no longer sufficient to counter the engine torque. There is no maximum airspeed at which control deflection becomes unnecessary.

In actual airplanes, of which I have flown many, the pilot must constantly apply the required control deflections to counter torque or the lack of it.

A common aerobatic demonstration maneuver is the hammerhead or stall turn.

In order to perform this maneuver the aircraft is flown on a vertical up line until there is just enough air flow over the rudder to yaw the aircraft around its vertical axis. Airspeed is very low at this point. In order to fly this maneuver correctly in ANY propeller driven aircraft, power must be reduced to idle when the ailerons lose effectiveness or the aircraft will rotate around its longitudinal axis due to engine torque. Without aileron effectiveness the pilot is powerless to arrest this rotation. The only cure is to remove the engine torque.

In DCS, its a pretty easy self-demonstration to see that engine torque is very lightly modeled. Just fly a vertical up line at full power. As speed diminishes, the aileron input required to counter engine torque should steadily increase until there isn't enough to prevent the from rolling.

And then there is anecdotal evidence from countless pilots.

The P-51, a large single engine fighter, was well known to kill pilots who slammed the throttle in a panic at low airspeed. The torque of the engine exceeded the ability of the aircraft controls to counter it and it was probably one of the most docile of the WWII single engine high HP fighters in this regard. One WWII pilot described having his new P-51 pilots go up high, slow to 140 with the gear and flaps out at 15 inches and slam the throttle to 60 inches. The resulting torque roll was dramatic enough for this to be a lesson that he believed saved many of his students from "torquing one in"

It is widely known that p-38 pilots would turn right with a 109 behind them because at air speeds well above stall speed the 109 engine torque would overpower the ability of the flight controls to counter it.

The P-51 engine torque is great enough to cause the left main tire to wear MUCH faster than the right as the torque drives it into the runway on takeoff.

The F4U was known as the "ensign eliminator" because it was especially unforgiving at low airspeed and high power and had some airflow issues over the wing that made the issue even worse.

The Spitfire 16 was reported to be impossible to takeoff in a straight line at full power.

In DCS, none of this behavior is demonstrated. There are some canned effects in the P-51 with a left roll as the wing stalls but you can go stop to stop on the throttle and not touch the flight controls and the aircraft reacts very mildly at air speeds reported to be "eye opening" in the real thing. The 109 is a bit better in this regard but still very mellow. it seems to acknowledge the existence of engine torque but mildly. Again, there is the canned left wing drop on takeoff but not much else.

I am not sure what you think my control setup has to do with anything but I fly on an extended Warthog with Slaw pedals with no silly curves but that really has nothing to do with anything. Replicating real world control pressures has even less to do with it.

I do have extensive real world experience in single engine propeller driven aircraft and every single one requires the pilot account for engine torque. The DCS 109 feels like a 285 hp Cessna 210, which is about the same size as a Bf-109. It weighs about 30% less. Most of that difference is in the engine.

One can even feel the engine torque at the beginning of takeoff roll in a modern jet. There is just no way around the physics of large chunks of spinning metal.

I understand games de-tuning torque for game play. DCS is meant to be something altogether different and this is a major hole in the FM.

You don't have to believe me. All of the evidence for the under modeling of torque is out there with just a bit of research and a basic understanding of physics.

Prop swings one way, rest of aircraft reacts by spinning the other way. It really is that simple.

If the pilot can go stop to stop on the throttle with no change in control inputs, engine torque doesn't exist.

If increasing aileron input is not required as airspeed decreases at a given power setting, engine torque doesn't exist.

If the above effects are implemented but are extremely mild and counter to the anecdotal evidence, one should naturally question if there are correctly modeled.

I really want DCS to do the propeller aircraft justice not just make them easy mode although that might sell more modules.

Nothing would make me happier than to fire up the DCS P-51 or 109 and have them replicate the real world behaviors. It seems that would be everyone's goal here.

NOTE: I am referring to the rotational torque of the engine/propeller combination only. I am not touching upon the various other forces acting upon a single engine aircraft in low airspeed/high power/high AOA flight regimes. One thing at a time.

NOTE2: I understand this was a total waste of my time.
__________________
www.475FG.com
Member Forum: http://www.satansangels.activeboard.com/

pmiceli is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 08:38 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.