Anybody else notice some significant changes to the way the K-4 handles - Page 7 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-18-2016, 09:04 AM   #61
Art-J
Veteran
 
Art-J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 4,166
Default

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?
__________________
i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.
Art-J is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2016, 11:32 AM   #62
tflash
Senior Member
 
tflash's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Belgium
Posts: 2,776
Default

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.
__________________
tflash is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2016, 12:43 PM   #63
Integrals
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: MI/TN USA
Posts: 95
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yo-Yo View Post
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!



Quote:
Originally Posted by Art-J View Post
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)
https://youtu.be/3H_9iR7zvMk?t=857


slightly off topic, but he talks a little about performance and tactics in part 1:
https://youtu.be/JitLr5D7LSI?t=449

Last edited by Integrals; 09-18-2016 at 12:49 PM.
Integrals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2016, 08:00 PM   #64
Solty
Senior Member
 
Solty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,693
Default

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:


Quote:
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.
__________________
In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.
My channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA..._Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Last edited by Solty; 09-18-2016 at 08:13 PM.
Solty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2016, 08:50 PM   #65
SlipBall
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 758
Default

I thought that the aircraft used were damaged goods, and so you know can any of it be trusted
SlipBall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-18-2016, 09:37 PM   #66
Solty
Senior Member
 
Solty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Poland
Posts: 1,693
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GT 5.0 View Post
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.
__________________
In 21st century there is only war and ponies.

My experience: Jane's attack squadron, IL2 for couple of years, War Thunder and DCS.
My channel:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCyA..._Sqdc0IKJuv6dA

Last edited by Solty; 09-19-2016 at 10:11 AM.
Solty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2016, 12:00 PM   #67
LeCuvier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South of France
Posts: 2,011
Default 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.
__________________
LeCuvier
Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
LeCuvier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2016, 12:21 PM   #68
LeCuvier
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: South of France
Posts: 2,011
Default 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.
__________________
LeCuvier
Windows 10 Pro 64Bit | i7-4790 CPU |16 GB RAM|SSD System Disk|SSD Gaming Disk| MSI GTX-1080 Gaming 8 GB| Acer XB270HU | TM Warthog HOTAS | VKB Gladiator Pro | MongoosT-50 | MFG Crosswind Pedals | TrackIR 5
LeCuvier is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2016, 01:28 PM   #69
rrohde
Veteran
 
rrohde's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Après nous le déluge
Posts: 4,757
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LeCuvier View Post
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.
__________________

PC: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz @ 5.0GHz | MSI GTX 1080 TI | ASUS Maximus IX Hero | 32GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB Samsung 850 PRO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit
Glear: HP Reverb | Jetseat 908 | Monstertech MTX Sim Rig | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG PRO (center mount) | VKB Gunfighter Mk.II /w SCG-R Premium (side mount for DCS F-16)
rrohde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2016, 02:51 PM   #70
otto
Member
 
otto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Where Hartman fought p51's
Posts: 587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GrapeJam View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Solty View Post
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.

Last edited by otto; 09-19-2016 at 02:57 PM.
otto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

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 06:24 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.