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

[DefaultFace]

I think that the things we are talking about here are for one very difficult to simulate accurately and secondly would have a very minimal effect on the end simulation itself. At the most all it will be is a bit of a change in habits and maybe in extreme cases tactics for the 109 drivers but in the end the result will be the same. He (or she) who knows his/her plane better and has practiced with it will win.

 

A quick google search for 'il2 Anthropomorphic controls' will tell you just about all you need to know about how well the attempt at such features in il2 went and how the community received it.

 

If I can't use trim in combat whats to stop me from flying around with full tail heavy trim and adjusting the curves to set a new 'zero point' for the stick so I don't have to push the whole time. With the current FM (no slats) flaps use in combat is more problematic than it's worth and before it was useful but by no means a decisive advantage. These things will affect my approach to landing more than they will any dogfight.

 

TBH making something like this takes time and effort which IMO would be better spent fixing the more important issues in DCS WWII atm such as netcode, new assets/flyables etc.

[otto]

important issues in DCS WWII atm such as netcode, new assets/flyables etc.

 

It's true what you say. Probably the biggest problem right now is Netcode.109 flight model is not that bad at the moment but when i sometimes dive from above with the 109 and the target plane flies faster than it should for a few meters(a kind of warping) it's just enough to make really precise deflection shooting very hard and frustrating.

Edited September 21, 2016 by otto

[Solty]

I think that the things we are talking about here are for one very difficult to simulate accurately and secondly would have a very minimal effect on the end simulation itself. At the most all it will be is a bit of a change in habits and maybe in extreme cases tactics for the 109 drivers but in the end the result will be the same. He (or she) who knows his/her plane better and has practiced with it will win.

 

A quick google search for 'il2 Anthropomorphic controls' will tell you just about all you need to know about how well the attempt at such features in il2 went and how the community received it.

 

If I can't use trim in combat whats to stop me from flying around with full tail heavy trim and adjusting the curves to set a new 'zero point' for the stick so I don't have to push the whole time. With the current FM (no slats) flaps use in combat is more problematic than it's worth and before it was useful but by no means a decisive advantage. These things will affect my approach to landing more than they will any dogfight.

 

TBH making something like this takes time and effort which IMO would be better spent fixing the more important issues in DCS WWII atm such as netcode, new assets/flyables etc.

And how is YoYo or any other FM modeler going to fix any of the netcode issues again? They have people working on it, it is not as if one person makes the whole game.

 

I would like to make sure that ergonomics play a crucial role in FM. Many speak how "it is the pilot not the machine that is important" and yet it seems that a very small group of people actually cares how the airplane handles or what are the limitations.

 

Pilot and airplane are both just as important parts of the equasion. If IRL the pilot is having problems with stiff controls it is just as important as modeling the horsepower of the engine.

 

It strikes me that many people do not care about the flying characteristics of the airplane. They say "some people are never satisfied", as if I had anything to be satisfied with when an airplane doesn't perform as it should IRL. That's what simulations are for.

 

It sometimes matters more than acceleration and best turn time. It is how the pilot can act and how his airplane reacts. It is what makes planes feel unique. It is what makes pilot say that they "feel" their aircraft. Each of them needs a different approach.

 

Sure I do not have the 109 (anymore), but that doesn't mean I do not care. If 109K doesn't perform as it should, it takes away value from the Fw190D and P-51D, because their capabilities are unique and interesting as long as the 109 has its own characteristics in check. It is somewhat a symbiosis.

[DefaultFace]

Well sure Yo Yo won't work on the netcode. He'll work on FMs for other aircraft. Either way it's time spent 'fixing' things that arguably aren't broken.

 

Also I never suggested that pilot/plane combo is unimportant. As you said both play and important role and a pilots ability to make use of his aircrafts performance (ergonomics) is a valid part of any simulation. The stick forces are one example of a good implementation of this concept.

 

However the point I was trying to make was that the suggestions such as restricting flaps/trim use would be very difficult to implement and likely cause more headaches than they would solve.

 

So let's say for a moment that the snug pit in the 109 was really a lasting and large hindrance and not something you get used to as some of the quotes above suggest. How do we simulate a tight cockpit? I for one am not in the market for a thrustmaster head smacked that whacks me every time I fly a roll...

 

Once again I'm not suggesting we ignore the details and intricacies of aircraft performance. Those are the things that separate dcs from other sims. Just saying we should consider what we can realistically implement and how.

[Talisman_VR]

And how is YoYo or any other FM modeler going to fix any of the netcode issues again? They have people working on it, it is not as if one person makes the whole game.

 

I would like to make sure that ergonomics play a crucial role in FM. Many speak how "it is the pilot not the machine that is important" and yet it seems that a very small group of people actually cares how the airplane handles or what are the limitations.

 

Pilot and airplane are both just as important parts of the equasion. If IRL the pilot is having problems with stiff controls it is just as important as modeling the horsepower of the engine.

 

It strikes me that many people do not care about the flying characteristics of the airplane. They say "some people are never satisfied", as if I had anything to be satisfied with when an airplane doesn't perform as it should IRL. That's what simulations are for.

 

It sometimes matters more than acceleration and best turn time. It is how the pilot can act and how his airplane reacts. It is what makes planes feel unique. It is what makes pilot say that they "feel" their aircraft. Each of them needs a different approach.

 

Sure I do not have the 109 (anymore), but that doesn't mean I do not care. If 109K doesn't perform as it should, it takes away value from the Fw190D and P-51D, because their capabilities are unique and interesting as long as the 109 has its own characteristics in check. It is somewhat a symbiosis.

 

The "it is the pilot not the machine that is important" thing that we read so many times on the forums seems a bit of a daft comment IMHO. In fact, I have come to think that it is a rather disingenuous comment.

 

The reason I say this is because I have just learnt from reading another forum that, apparently, some high tech HOTAS systems have software that can be used to provide a PC pilot with magic control effects to primary flight control surfaces that an aircraft in real life did not have and was not designed to have by the sim developers.

 

For example, I have read that an aircraft that did not have rudder trim, like the Bf 109, or an aircraft that did not have aileron trim, like the Spitfire, can be flown with the trim they did not have and were not designed to have in the sim, by programming HOTAS software. Of course, sim flying on PC systems has its limits of realism, but if expensive HOTAS systems can magic up primary flight system control effects (and I am talking about primary flight surface function here, with is fundamental to any attempt at realistic simulation) like rudder and aileron trim that is completely unhistorical then I would say that "it is not the pilot that matters, but the HOTAS software programme that can cheat the primary flight control systems."

 

I wonder how many PC pilots are banging on in the forums about flight models and flying accuracy and then are using magic rudder trim via HOTAS software on an aircraft that did not have rudder trim?

 

I wish there was a way for the flight sim developers to stop this sort of thing for the really important fundamental flight controls and effects. Of course we can't all fly the same PC home cockpit, so there will always be limits, but primary flight control effects by magic that the real aircraft did not have is a step over the line for me.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[DefaultFace]

The rudder/aileron trim script you are referring to cannot overcome the max stick deflection limits built in at speed in the 109. Therefore they have no bearing or effect on the max achievable roll/yaw rates etc achievable at a given speed. The only difference it makes is that the player doesn't have to balance the controls but use the trim hat. Impractical for combat flying considering how much this balance varies during turns climbs dives etc. It's a bit of a hack but by no means an autopilot aimbot for the 109.

 

Both pilot and machine are important. A machine can only give so much but it will only give it to a pilot who knows how to squeeze that performance out of it. Figuring out how to do this is what makes dcs fun for me. As it stands the 109 and the mustang are more closely matched than ever. This will change once the slats return but no one can say for sure by how much. It is by no means impossible to win in a mustang. There are plenty of pilots who do it. I see them behind me every time I hop on the server. Most of the time in dcs at the moment if you lose you've either made a mistake or you're new and still learning etc. I got killed a lot when starting out as well and I still do. An extra 200 hp won't help a pilot who doesn't know how to use it. There are so many comments on the server chat and in the forums about the 'bs 109' and the op 109 damage model that some people here are getting tired of hearing it. Especially when there are real people who regularly manage to overcome all of these insurmountable problems and kill us anyway.

 

I don't think any of us are saying that dcs in its current state is perfect and nothing should be changed. The mustang deserves a period comparable engine rating/ac configuration. ED has said this is coming. The damage models are a problem for pilots on both sides. ED is working on it.

 

At the end of the day a simulation can only hope to come so close to reality. ED is doing their best to get these things as accurate as possible but it takes time. I think some people here would find more success/have more fun if they put that stuff to the side for a bit and just accepted that the aircraft is what it is (for now, once again not saying that we should ignore problems, just that we need to have some patience for the things that ED has already said are coming) and spent some time figuring out how to use it to its full potential. When the slats got closed we all got used to it, adjusted our fighting style and moved on. Sure it's a bit annoying and not right but tbh after a week of flying it I'm hardly bothered any more. It should be fixed but I'm still having fun in the meantime.

[GrapeJam]

I find it funny that DCS is a high fidelity sim where people play for the ultimate realistic experience, yet there're people here who only care about winning and epeen without giving a crap about how the plane should actually perform, it's sad.

[NineLine]

Please get back on topic, this is about the changes to the ED modules. All this other bickering and chest thumping has gotten old a long time ago.

[DefaultFace]

I'm sorry if what I said came across as "lol who cares lets just play warthunder" but that was certainly not the point I was trying to convey. DCS is excellent because of its depth and accuracy, as I said (multiple times) these things should be tuned and worked at as best as possible/achievable in a manner that delivers realistic results. All I was saying is that in the meantime people should focus on flying not harassing ed and or anyone who will listen about how they only get shot down because of bugs or some obscure perceived fm fault which has little bearing on combat effectiveness in dcs. If there is real proof of 109 disadvantages which ed can did a good way to simulate I am 100% for its inclusion in the sim. In the meantime I'll enjoy what is still a superb combat flight sim.

[Kurfürst]

If there is real proof of 109 disadvantages which ed can did a good way to simulate I am 100% for its inclusion in the sim.

 

They already model the relatively high stick forces in pitch and roll. For all planes, to the same standard as I understand. You get reduced roll rate and slower pitching speed from the data available on that.

 

There's nothing else to model, especially not based on opinion and hearsay.

 

Now how about clearing out the thread of off topic posts and let us discuss changes in the module we bought and fly. And I phrased that in the most polite way.

[Talisman_VR]

They already model the relatively high stick forces in pitch and roll. For all planes, to the same standard as I understand. You get reduced roll rate and slower pitching speed from the data available on that.

 

There's nothing else to model, especially not based on opinion and hearsay.

 

Now how about clearing out the thread of off topic posts and let us discuss changes in the module we bought and fly. And I phrased that in the most polite way.

 

But if PC pilots can programme in unhistorical and unrealistic trim effects using HOTAS software then what is all this worth? And I mean that as a serious question, as I don't know much about computers and I am no expert on aircraft flight modeling. If changes the developers make to a flight model for more accuracy can be over-ridden, modified or worked around by HOTAS software programs in terms of primary flight control surface effects, then I am beginning to question the meaning of it all, lol.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[DefaultFace]

Talisman the target script you're talking about only changes the inputs given to dcs. It can't overcome limitations models by ed ie stick forces. I think those guys are just using it so that they don't need a stick extension to hold aileron inputs on a joy flight. Other than that I don't think anyone uses it.

[Kurfürst]

Other than what DefaultFace explained (twice), I don't know what "online anti cheating" is built in the DCS that would prevent client programs hack into the main FM files and apply those to the server.

 

And that is if there is any such protection, that is...

[NineLine]

I cant see anything that would change the FM as stated. You can only program your controls within the constraints of the FM.

[Talisman_VR]

Talisman the target script you're talking about only changes the inputs given to dcs. It can't overcome limitations models by ed ie stick forces. I think those guys are just using it so that they don't need a stick extension to hold aileron inputs on a joy flight. Other than that I don't think anyone uses it.

 

How well and easy it is for the aircraft to perform up to and between the limits set by the designers is effected, surely?

The real life design of high performance aircraft involves compromises. Surely we should experience the effects of those design compromises, rather than have a magic work around for primary flight control design compromises just to meet our convenience?

As one example, if coarse and difficult movement of primary control surfaces are to be aided and smoothed out by a trim effect, using another set of controls that did not exist in real life and was not designed to exist by the simulator aircraft design team, then were are we as far as integrity of simulation of a primary control surface is concerned?

In short, if trim effect can be achieved on a Bf 109 rudder by using a magically programed button, rather than relying on the allocated rudder control device, then the PC pilot has avoided a very fundamental design compromise and is arguably not flying a Bf 109 simulation at all. Same thing with regard to Spitfire aileron's. If the PC simulator aircraft model developers allow the movement of a primary control surface to be effected by a second control device that did not exist on the real aircraft, I suggest that it would be reasonable to consider that fundamental aspects of the integrity of the flight model would be compromised.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[DefaultFace]

The trim function you're mentioning is only really useful in cruise. Sure it's not realistic but if someone wants to joyride in the 109 with a bit more ease then whatever, to each their own. In single player it doesn't matter and seeing as it doesn't affect combat it's not really that big of a deal. I wouldn't use it but hey that's just me. The speeds in combat change so fast that trimming makes no sense. You'd be more accurate and faster just doing it yourself.

 

The built in auto rudder in the options is more of a cheat than this is...

[Yo-Yo]

But if PC pilots can programme in unhistorical and unrealistic trim effects using HOTAS software then what is all this worth? And I mean that as a serious question, as I don't know much about computers and I am no expert on aircraft flight modeling. If changes the developers make to a flight model for more accuracy can be over-ridden, modified or worked around by HOTAS software programs in terms of primary flight control surface effects, then I am beginning to question the meaning of it all, lol.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

You can not override trim change velocity set in the FM. And you can not change this parameter as it is hardcoded.

Additionally, as the WWII project goes to wide MP, we would kill LUA input option for FM moving all parameters into hardcoded part.

[Solty]

You can not override trim change velocity set in the FM. And you can not change this parameter as it is hardcoded.

Additionally, as the WWII project goes to wide MP, we would kill LUA input option for FM moving all parameters into hardcoded part.

Sounds great.

[Whisper]

@Talisman, the thing you are talking about has zero impact on general use of the 109, and certainly none in combat, and none in overriding any 109 limitation. It's only usefull on straight flight to keep the plane level without touching the stick all the time. Otoh I don't understand using this at all since with a little bit of knowledge about the bird, you can keep it level easily with minimal rudder input. So it's imho a useless script with useless consequences.

 

To get back to original topic,I may not have flown it enough since last patch but hasn't behavior also changed on the ground? I found it wayy more controllable and responsive on ground part of a landing run. Maybe it magically clicked for me, but I experienced none of the sliding and turns I had 80% of the time before the patch

[Kurfürst]

In short, if trim effect can be achieved on a Bf 109 rudder by using a magically programed button, rather than relying on the allocated rudder control device, then the PC pilot has avoided a very fundamental design compromise and is arguably not flying a Bf 109 simulation at all.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

 

The problem is that as you noted, we supplement real control devices with some magical equivalents, i.e. computer peripherials. Ideally, you would apply force on a rudder-like computer device, at which point you are already deviating from the simulation of a real 109 since there is no way you would be applying the same leg forces on that plastic thing as a real 109 pilot would in a dive, for example. Same goes to joysticks, especially as FFB controllers regrettably died out. There is plently of simplification in control already.

 

Not everyone has a rudder, either, if they have a twist on the stick they can use that for rudder and apply some constant twist force on that, or on the pedal, but then how is that so entirely different from telling your little virtual pilot to apply that small constant force all the time? Certainly its not 100% the same thing, but it isn't worlds apart either. Real life pilots would do that as a second nature on a far larger stick and rudder, just as you maintain the throttle position in a car.

 

And as others have noted, it basically has no practical effect at all on combat flying. I don't think its something to worry much about. Certainly it could be more, and more hardcore, but not everyone wants to do that, and as long there is no unfair aspect of it effecting other player's enjoyment, I could not care less of it myself.

[Talisman_VR]

The trim function you're mentioning is only really useful in cruise. Sure it's not realistic but if someone wants to joyride in the 109 with a bit more ease then whatever, to each their own. In single player it doesn't matter and seeing as it doesn't affect combat it's not really that big of a deal. I wouldn't use it but hey that's just me. The speeds in combat change so fast that trimming makes no sense. You'd be more accurate and faster just doing it yourself.

 

The built in auto rudder in the options is more of a cheat than this is...

 

This thread is about noticing differences to the way the K-4 handles since changes were made. My point is that if some pilots are able to trim primary control surfaces using a HOTAS software trim function to provide a magic secondary control device that was not part of the aircraft design, then noticing differences is going to be a different experience for some and perhaps not so easy to quantify. In short, the playing field is not level for all K-4 (and Dora) pilots in this instance. Trimming makes every sense and is a big deal. Rudder assist for easy settings is one thing and I can understand that. But the issue I raise is a bit more fundamental than that.

 

The K-4 (and the FW 190-D) did not have rudder or aileron trim. For the K-4 (and the Dora) to be magically gifted with the advantage of trim functions they did not have, by HOTAS software, makes them less like a K-4 (and FW 190-D) and more like the P51-D in this particular regard.

 

Further more, trim is in fact important in the combat zone, including when actually in combat, if a pilot wants to get the very best from the aircraft within the performance envelope. Trim makes handling the aircraft 'easier' and enables better 'quality' of flight; this in turn enables better performance within the flight model performance envelope. For example, if you were to take a P15-D and fly against a P51-D that has been modified to have no trim at all, it is easy to know which aircraft will always have an inbuilt advantage.

 

Trim can effect the quality and performance of a dive, a climb and a turn; also fuel economy. The secondary control function provided by trimming can also enable a chance of surviving to control the aircraft if the primary controls are damaged.

 

I would like to believe that it is worth discussing handling performance seriously. But my recently acquired knowledge that PC flight sim aircraft can be given trim controls, via HOTAS software, that they did not have in real life, to relieve holding the physical input of primary controls, is leading me to question the flight sim genre; even one with a reputation for fidelity like DCS. Is it wrong to question this? And how seriously can we discuss aircraft handling if secondary primary control functions are allowed and accepted, that did not exist?

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

[Talisman_VR]

You can not override trim change velocity set in the FM. And you can not change this parameter as it is hardcoded.

Additionally, as the WWII project goes to wide MP, we would kill LUA input option for FM moving all parameters into hardcoded part.

 

Thank you very much for your response Yo-Yo. It is the ability for the unhistorical benefit of improved quality of performance within the overall performance envelope that is of concern, for an aircraft that did not have the advantage of trim. An aircraft that did not have trim should not have the benefit that comes with trim is my point. The benefit if trim is considerable and not to be underestimated I suggest.

 

If I understand you correctly, this issue of being able to use HOTAS software to enable trim control that did not exist is an anomaly that does exist at the moment on multi-player full switch, but won't at some time in the future? Or it will be an option?

 

I do not understand what "wide MP" means exactly, or when that might be, so any clarification you may be able to provide would be gratefully received.

 

Thank you again and happy landings,

 

Talisman

[rrohde]

In this context, "wide MP" would mean the Normandy Map and DCS WWII becoming available to a wider audience (i.e., us), and not only beta testers (as it is now).

[shagrat]

#1. Immediately after takeoff the first thing the pilot does is use the flaps or trim (which is it?). Then raises gear. I know a lot of people use hotas controls or other key bindings that allow for simultaneous manipulation of the throttle, flaps, trim, and gear. Is there any plan to prevent this from being done (on all aircraft) because its physically impossible to do this with only 2 hands (assuming one doesn't release the stick)

 

Not before we have G-Force simulation to feel acceleration, movement etc. and 190° VR glasses in 3.500.000x1.200.000 resolution to accurately simulate the pilots vision, and of course a complete physical cockpit with all buttons and levers.

As long as we need to manage every aspect of the plane, while looking down into a screen without peripheral vision and no motion sense of forward, up or down we have enough disadvantages over a real world pilot to cope with.

 

That does not take into account the problems of judging height, distance and spot/track other planes without stereoscopic vision, as we are looking on a flat 2D screen of the world.

 

As an option, for hardcore sim fanatics, no problem... as a means to hassle and restrict others, no!

 

And before we should restrict this, we should maybe ask about preventing people from playing in arcade mode?

I think the nice "enemy here" -Markers, 360° radar, especially in WWII planes is far more "impossible" than switching and holding(!) a few buttons, rather than flicking through them quickly as in a real plane... ;)

[shagrat]

But if PC pilots can programme in unhistorical and unrealistic trim effects using HOTAS software then what is all this worth? And I mean that as a serious question, as I don't know much about computers and I am no expert on aircraft flight modeling. If changes the developers make to a flight model for more accuracy can be over-ridden, modified or worked around by HOTAS software programs in terms of primary flight control surface effects, then I am beginning to question the meaning of it all, lol.

 

Happy landings,

 

Talisman

Hmmm, so if someone like that guy who has lost one arm and uses some other physical interface, to cope with that deficiency you want ED to punish him for his disability?

 

So let's see what we can do about someone, rigging a potentiometer to an axis control of his joystick or rudder... Hmmm, nothing?

 

Or he puts two sticks/cords and a wiper motor to his pedals and physically moves the rudder pedals?

 

Or he could rig two cords to the pedal and bind it into position on his chair...

 

How again should a programmer monitor and prevent the use of "unrealistic" trim again?

 

Just my two cents...