Control stiffness "clipping" behavior - why?

[Pocket Sized]

This applies to the L-39, P-51, Bf-109, and Fw-190 as well as the Spitfire, but I decided this is the best place to post it seeing as the spit is still in development.

 

I totally understand why the controls get stiffer with airspeed and how the current implementation simulates this (clipping control surface deflection range as a function of airspeed and pilot strength).

 

The old way (formerly on the 109 and still used on the MiG-15) made joystick movement correspond to a certain stick force in game. This led to much smoother controls at high speed because all of the joystick's movement range was usable at all airspeeds. Currently, as airspeed increases, the usable range becomes smaller and the controls become more sensitive.

 

So why was the old behavior scrapped in favor of the clipping we have now? Yo-Yo?

[Art-J]

That was the reasoning I recall:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2902390&postcount=47

 

.. worth recalling along with other interesting posts in that thread, discussing pros and cons of both modelling approaches (force-based input vs position-based one).

[Solty]

I agree with OP. It is a far better system because it actually changes how you move the stick at home. I think it was implemented only for 109 and I hoped they would do that for every plane. But apparently they had different plans :(

Edited February 11, 2017 by Solty

[Pocket Sized]

I just had an idea.

 

So I completely understand the logic behind the clipping behavior for the elevator in the 109, it makes maintaining a constant AoA much easier and realistic.

 

Why "clip" the inputs to the aileron and rudder on the spitfire? All you care about is roll rate and turn coordination, neither of which are absolute values like AoA is. In other words, when you're flying, you move the stick until you reach a desired roll rate. Roll rate already varies wildly with airspeed, so it wouldn't make rolling performance too unpredictable IMO, although it would greatly increase precision at high speed.

 

Rudder deflection doesn't matter too much at high speed either. All you care about is turn coordination (lateral G force), which is extremely difficult to control at the moment due to the sensitive rudder.

[Krupi]

Why would it, you have less control so any slight movement would have a larger impact on elevators.

 

It is more realistic with this approach, however because you have no feedback it feels unfortunately quite unnatural :(

[Pocket Sized]

Why would it, you have less control so any slight movement would have a larger impact on elevators.

 

It is more realistic with this approach, however because you have no feedback it feels unfortunately quite unnatural :(

 

The spitfire elevator is light enough that the control stiffness behavior doesn't effect it.

 

Going back to the old, scaling behavior would result in the same amount of control authority we have now but with much greater precision in roll and yaw.

[Krupi]

The spitfire elevator is light enough that the control stiffness behavior doesn't effect it.

 

Going back to the old, scaling behavior would result in the same amount of control authority we have now but with much greater precision in roll and yaw.

 

More control in fact, as you have greater precision on the elevators that would allow greater control of the elevator before you snap the wings ;)

[amazingme]

This applies to the L-39, P-51, Bf-109, and Fw-190 as well as the Spitfire, but I decided this is the best place to post it seeing as the spit is still in development.

 

I totally understand why the controls get stiffer with airspeed and how the current implementation simulates this (clipping control surface deflection range as a function of airspeed and pilot strength).

 

The old way (formerly on the 109 and still used on the MiG-15) made joystick movement correspond to a certain stick force in game. This led to much smoother controls at high speed because all of the joystick's movement range was usable at all airspeeds. Currently, as airspeed increases, the usable range becomes smaller and the controls become more sensitive.

 

So why was the old behavior scrapped in favor of the clipping we have now? Yo-Yo?

Unless your question is not rhetorical, the answer is: until we have joysticks that mimic the real forces (maybe they exist), one must simulate it. I understood this approach once I got the MSFFB2 instead of the X55. Do the same, and you'll understand how hard is to simulate compressibility and stick forces.. in any simulation.. Without the proper hardware, which we're all missing, this is the best solution so far for WWII crates. And it would be really unfortunate not to be implemented on all WWII modules.. wouldn't it?

[Pocket Sized]

Unless your question is not rhetorical, the answer is: until we have joysticks that mimic the real forces (maybe they exist), one must simulate it. I understood this approach once I got the MSFFB2 instead of the X55. Do the same, and you'll understand how hard is to simulate compressibility and stick forces.. in any simulation.. Without the proper hardware, which we're all missing, this is the best solution so far for WWII crates. And it would be really unfortunate not to be implemented on all WWII modules.. wouldn't it?

 

I'm proposing two different types of control force implementation.

 

The feel of the airplane is changed drastically, its max performance remains the same.

[amazingme]

Can we see the code you have written for your proposed solutions? Thanks!

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

[Pocket Sized]

Can we see the code you have written for your proposed solutions? Thanks!

 

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

 

Both solutions already exist in game, I'm proposing that the spitfire should use the "old" one for its ailerons and rudder.

[OnlyforDCS]

Both solutions already exist in game, I'm proposing that the spitfire should use the "old" one for its ailerons and rudder.

 

I agree, at least for the rudder. Don't think it's necessary for the ailerons.