Throttle movement in-game vs. HOTAS

[Guppy]

Ever since the Hornet was released I have noticed that there is a discrepancy between moving the throttle in-real life with a HOTAS and when the throttle moves in game. In order to understand what I mean... start in the air and move your throttle to idle. VERY slowly move the throttle forward while keeping an eye on the throttle position in game. You'll notice the throttle does not move until ~ 10% of the movement of your HOTAS throttle (warhog). This issue is evident in multiple throttles: Warthog, VPC, WINWING and X56.

 

I have not encountered this issue in other modules -- just the Hornet. Why is this the case -- is it meant to be like this? This can be adjusted by changing the throttle/axis values in settings; but I feel like this should not be needed.

 

I'm curious if this is something others have noticed and is there a fix planned for it or working as intended?

[randomTOTEN]

Flight Idle stop.

[Guppy]

Would you care to explain? If I move my throttle IRL the throttle itself should physically move in-game. This is not the case.

[oldcrusty]

Would you care to explain? If I move my throttle IRL the throttle itself should physically move in-game. This is not the case.

 

Try it on the ground. You won't see any discrepancy. The Hornet's throttle movement in game simulates that. You can't move it back below 70% or so. When you're on the ground the flt. idle 'detent' retracts. Our Warthogs and others don't have this feature.

That's why, when landing on a runway, right after mains hit the ground, nudge the throttles forward tiny bit then immediately pull it back. This way you'll notice your RPM will drop to 65%.

[Guppy]

 

Try it on the ground. You won't see any discrepancy. The Hornet's throttle movement in game simulates that. You can't move it back below 70% or so. When you're on the ground the flt. idle 'detent' retracts. Our Warthogs and others don't have this feature.

That's why, when landing on a runway, right after mains hit the ground, nudge the throttles forward tiny bit then immediately pull it back. This way you'll notice your RPM will drop to 65%.

 

Ahhh so weight on wheels in the real aircraft changes the total actual movement of the throttle in real life. For us... the total movement of our physical throttle does not change but to offset this there is a "dead-zone" in flight. I wonder if it would be more practical if this feature was 'removed' since our throttles cannot possibly have this feature and just recalculate the interim values from idle. They can still be whatever they should be IE: ground = 65 air = 70 but those interim values are changed up until the detent for AB; a curve if you will. If I program this in settings I lose ground idle. Basically whenever we move the throttle we should generate thrust. In this case we lose 10% of the movement in the air. This can cause issues when you think you've moved the throttle forward but additional RPMs have not been generated.

 

This makes more sense though - thank you.

[HILOK]

 

I wonder if it would be more practical if this feature was 'removed' since our throttles cannot possibly have this feature and just recalculate the interim values from idle. They can still be whatever they should be IE: ground = 65 air = 70 but those interim values are changed up until the detent for AB; a curve if you will. If I program this in settings I lose ground idle. Basically whenever we move the throttle we should generate thrust. In this case we lose 10% of the movement in the air. This can cause issues when you think you've moved the throttle forward but additional RPMs have not been generated.

 

 

good point! actually the flight idle stop COULD be somehow reproduced on a TM WTG using a detent inset, such as the ones Debolestis is producing...one drawback could be however that during taxi one would constantly have to push the throttles back and forth over that idle detent, i imagine.

 

[oldcrusty]

This could also be adjusted in the code. With WonW bring RPM to 65% as soon min. power position is detected after landing.

On a side note: There's so much throttle travel wasted on a cut-off part of the Warthog. They should've put that detent further back. All we need is around 5 deg. from the detent to back stop. Now wait... this was probably determined by the pot limits, was it?

[BuzzU]

It works ok for the Hog and that's what it was made for.

[Guppy]

It works ok for the Hog and that's what it was made for.

 

Well... this issue is beyond the TMWH and A-10, as I noted in my original post this is an issue across ALL throttles, because of the way it is programmed in game. ED has programmed a dead zone for the first 5-10% of the throttle movement range when in the air. When in reality the game should just recalculate a curve when you are flying.

 

The way it should be coded is the following:

I forget the actual values off hand here, so bare with me....

 

Lets say a throttle range of movement is from 0 to 100. At 0 you are at idle and at 81 you have engaged the afterburner; 80 would be full mil. At 100 you are full forward, full AB. Regardless if you are in the air or the ground 80 will always engage the AB and 100 will always be full burner. The means there needs to be a curve programmed and calculated between weight on wheels and wheels up; the values between idle and full mil need to recalculate.

 

For example:

Ground:

• At 0 you are at 65% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  
• At 80 you are at 100% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  
• At 100 you are at 110% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  

Air:

• At 0 you are at 70% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  
• At 80 you are at 100% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  
• At 100 you are at 110% RPM [insert applicable RPM]
  

The values between 0 and 80 need to recalculate. If at 0 you are at 65% RPM, on the ground. Then you get 80 points to play with (0-80). Since we know beyond 80 you engage the AB, which is 100% RPM for full Mil, then we know we have 35% RPM to play with. Dividing that 35% by 80 points would give us 0.43 RPMs per point of throttle movement. For the air is 0.375 RPMs per point. Between full mil and full AB we add 0.5%

 

It would look like the following.

[TABLE=width: 163]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl65]Point[/TD]

[TD=class: xl65]Ground RPM%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]0[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]65.0000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]1[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]65.4375[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]2[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]65.8750[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]3[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]66.3125[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]4[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]66.7500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]5[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]67.1875[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl68]…[/TD]

[TD=class: xl69]…[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]76[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]98.2500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]77[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]98.6875[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]78[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]99.1250[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]79[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]99.5625[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]80[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]100.0000[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

[TABLE=width: 135]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl65]Point[/TD]

[TD=class: xl65]AIR RPM%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]0[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]70.0000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]1[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]70.3750[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]2[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]70.7500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]3[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]71.1250[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]4[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]71.5000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]5[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]71.8750[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl68]…[/TD]

[TD=class: xl69]…[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]76[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]98.5000[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]77[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]98.8750[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]78[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]99.2500[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]79[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]99.6250[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]80[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]100.0000[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

 

 

 

Values Beyond 80/100% RPM for both air and ground:

 

[TABLE=width: 89]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl65]Point[/TD]

[TD=class: xl65]RPM%[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]80[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]100.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]81[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]100.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]82[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]101.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]83[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]101.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]84[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]102.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]85[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]102.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]86[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]103.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]87[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]103.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]88[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]104.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]89[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]104.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]90[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]105.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]91[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]105.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]92[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]106.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]93[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]106.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]94[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]107.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]95[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]107.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]96[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]108.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]97[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]108.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]98[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]109.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]99[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]109.5[/TD]

[/TR]

[TR]

[TD=class: xl66, align: right]100[/TD]

[TD=class: xl67, align: right]110.0[/TD]

[/TR]

[/TABLE]

[BuzzU]

Well, you sure put some thought into that. I did a new install of OB and haven't installed the Hornet yet. So, I can't check what you're talking about. I will.

 

Not that it matters but this is the curve that I use with a Shapesway detent.

 

0-4-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-86-100

 

 

[Guppy]

Well, you sure put some thought into that. I did a new install of OB and haven't installed the Hornet yet. So, I can't check what you're talking about. I will.

 

Not that it matters but this is the curve that I use with a Shapesway detent.

 

0-4-14-24-34-44-54-64-74-86-100

 

 

I don't use the TMWH any more - I use the WINWING throttle. But it really does not matter as the behavior is the same for every throttle out there.

[BuzzU]

Ok, I got the Hornet installed and I tested it in the free-flight mission. When I moved my throttle off of idle the throttle in the Hornet moved right away but the RPM didn't go up until I had moved a 1/2" or maybe a bit more. So, I went back in my curve and changed the first number from 4 to 9. Tested again and now the RPM goes up with the slightest bit of movement from my throttle.

 

It doesn't sound the same as what you get but it is my result.

[Guppy]

Ok, I got the Hornet installed and I tested it in the free-flight mission. When I moved my throttle off of idle the throttle in the Hornet moved right away but the RPM didn't go up until I had moved a 1/2" or maybe a bit more. So, I went back in my curve and changed the first number from 4 to 9. Tested again and now the RPM goes up with the slightest bit of movement from my throttle.

 

It doesn't sound the same as what you get but it is my result.

 

The issue is not from off to idle. It is from idle to anything. The 1/2" movement that you experienced is exactly what I am talking about. You lose part of your throttle throw when transitioning away from idle in the air. This is not a problem on the ground.

 

The problem you are going to experience now that you have adjusted your curve is that while you move your throttle from idle to X in the air to compensate for this... you are going to be way more sensitive on the ground because on the ground it works without adjusting the curve. Weight on wheels physically changes the lowest RPM in the Hornet IRL. So now you are skipping that "chunk" when you have weight on your wheels. This is from reply 4/5 above

Ahhh so weight on wheels in the real aircraft changes the total actual movement of the throttle in real life. For us... the total movement of our physical throttle does not change but to offset this there is a "dead-zone" in flight.

[BuzzU]

Read again. I was flying and not in off. I tried to taxi and it's fine. We have different throttles and may be getting different results.

[randomTOTEN]

You lose part of your throttle throw when transitioning away from idle in the air.

Apparently so does the real aircraft.

Which is why I don't understand why you're asking for a change. You can either install a physical flight idle stop, or just accept that you have a dead zone in the range your throttle would be physically blocked from moving into. It's so much easier than trying to reprogram the throttle axis curves for flight vs ground, which isn't accurate for the real aircraft.

 

Yes, with the TDC Realistic slew our hardware limitations mandated a simulation simplification.. but it this case it's hardly justified IMVHO.

 

[oldcrusty]

One thing the dev could do very easily is enable the ground idle right after landing so when the throttle goes back to idle, it's at ground idle w/o having to move it forward again then back to idle. But... I can make a bet the dev won't change it, just because:music_whistling:

[randomTOTEN]

Why?

[Ziptie]

One thing the dev could do very easily is enable the ground idle right after landing so when the throttle goes back to idle, it's at ground idle w/o having to move it forward again then back to idle. But... I can make a bet the dev won't change it, just because:music_whistling:

 

It is actually a good thing that you have to "bump" the throttles forward and then aft after landing (wow) to simulate pulling the throttles to ground idle from flight idle. Not sure any throttle out there for the sim world can replicate what the real throttles accomplish in real life. It's become so standard for me, when I fly the Hornet, after the rear wheels touch down on the runway to "bump" the throttles and carry the nose up for the initial part of runway travel. I'm with the others, not really sure why this is a big deal and desired to change.

 

My throttles move fluidly in relativity in game and with the physical throttles. Using stock TMWH throttle curves and other properties.

 

 

My .02

 

 

Cheers,

 

Ziptie

[oldcrusty]

Why?

 

Consistency. Ground idle is on before T/O, why not after landing. You don't need to have the flight idle stop simulated by moving the throttles back twice. You're never at idle on short final (well, you're not supposed to be) so... when you slam the throttles back after wheels hit the ground, the code should invoke ground idle w/o you having to do anything. No big deal... consistency:)

[randomTOTEN]

Consistency. Ground idle is on before T/O, why not after landing.

It is "on" after landing. What are you talking about here? As soon as the airplane detects WoW, the virtual flight idle stop is retracted, and the simulator accepts any throttle position between flight idle and ground idle. Otherwise the minimum accepted is flight idle.

 

You don't need to have the flight idle stop simulated by moving the throttles back twice.

But that's how it works in the real jet. From flight idle you have to physically move the throttles to ground idle. They are different physical positions.

 

You're never at idle on short final (well, you're not supposed to be) so... when you slam the throttles back after wheels hit the ground, the code should invoke ground idle w/o you having to do anything.

And it does. That's how it works.

 

The only time you would care about the flight idle stop is during a flared landing, where you pull the power to (flight) idle before wheels on the runway. On touchdown, the flight idle stop is removed and the throttles can be further retarded to ground idle. This works in the sim. Otherwise as you've said if you pull the throttles all the way back after landing they go to ground idle.. not flight idle.

 

In flight the simulator ignores any throttle position less than flight idle, so don't worry about setting it against the ground idle stop. That's all deadzone between flight and ground idle. It's probably the best implementation outside of you installing a physical flight idle stop on your hardware.

[Bob_Bushman]

This movement "bump to idle" is only necessary when landing on a runway.

 

When at the boat your in AB when touching down anyways.

 

As for the simulated flight idle, current implementation is the best implementation.

Full stop. (Hihi)

The reason why it exist in the first place is so you don't choke your engines in flight.

Of ED didn't simulated this we would have a lesser sim and simpler engine model.

 

It doesn't cost us any control fidelity it just the Sim throttle response, having the ranges change as in flight vs weight on wheels is a bad idea.

 

I think there is such an axis that changes on state.

The nws between normal and high, as in sure we all know in a high, a much smaller input is needed for a given result, and u really don't want that behavior, even a little bit on my throttle.

 

 

[oldcrusty]

All right, this thread is drifting off a bit and I threw in some related and unrelated 'stuff' myself.

 

Just to clarify my input to this: The OP noticed the dead part of the throttle curve and asked about it. He got the answer and then the snowball started.:)

 

My only suggestion for the devs was to be consistent with the virtual flight idle stop. Since after T/O (WoffW) the stop comes up... outstanding, why not do the same after landing and make it retract, without this double-tap. Regardless where the throttle is, the lower RPM limit drops.

That's it. No curves adjusting.

 

Now, since this is a chitchat, not a formal bug report, I threw in couple of 'gripes' related to my WH. Just observations. I'm not expecting ED to fix these.

[Guppy]

I honestly fully disagree with most of your assessments, randomTOTEN; you're trading one piece of 'realism' while having unrealistic throttle behavior on our home throttles. While I do agree that yes, the real jet does limit the throttle throw when in the air it also does not have a dead zone. So the game is forcing us to have an unrealistic deadzone. That is, there is a physical component that moves forward in the throttle in real life that calibrates itself. Our home throttles do not do this and there is no workaround for this unless we are willing to make WoW thrust unrealistic. Case and point - when a hornet driver moves her throttle forward, in the air, thrust is generated. In our case we do not generate thrust - this is unrealistic.

 

Further, most of our throttles, with exception of the WINWING, have very small throttle travel distance vs. the real jet. Losing 5-10% of your throw is a big deal - it is noticeable, particularly when formation flying. I even notice it with the WINWING. Mostly, because I've been aware of it in all of the other throttles I mentioned above (I have quite the collection for test purposes).

 

As far as the effort in cording, its minimal. It's already being done to an extent hence the limiting factor in the air. Should this be of critical importance? No. But as the module matures this could easily be something that is addressed to make a more seamless application of the sim for our home gear.

[Guppy]

All right, this thread is drifting off a bit and I threw in some related and unrelated 'stuff' myself.

 

Just to clarify my input to this: The OP noticed the dead part of the throttle curve and asked about it. He got the answer and then the snowball started.:)

 

My only suggestion for the devs was to be consistent with the virtual flight idle stop. Since after T/O (WoffW) the stop comes up... outstanding, why not do the same after landing and make it retract, without this double-tap. Regardless where the throttle is, the lower RPM limit drops.

That's it. No curves adjusting.

 

Now, since this is a chitchat, not a formal bug report, I threw in couple of 'gripes' related to my WH. Just observations. I'm not expecting ED to fix these.

 

No I think this dialogue is good. I appreciate the candor and the context of all of this. There are inconsistencies here and there are trade-offs for realism that make other things "less" realistic and it is good to talk about such things. As the OP, I can say this. haha :)

[randomTOTEN]

And I disagree with you, too.

So the game is forcing us to have an unrealistic deadzone.

No, that's your hardware's fault.

 

Our home throttles do not do this and there is no workaround for this unless we are willing to make WoW thrust unrealistic.

This isn't the only virtual airplane I fly that does this. The Majestic Q400 has an identical system. In the Bombardier Q400 if you go below the flight idle stop in flight (try to put your hardware at idle) an alarm wails continuously to warn you of a danger condition. That's all replicated in the Majestic version, with the addition of an audible "click" detent for flight idle. An audible detent would be vastly superior to your supposed solution, as it also does not change the calibration of the throttles. You merely replace a touch sensation (physical block of throttle movement) with a sound sensation (click informs you that flight idle is reached). Obviously there's no alarm for the invalid position (in the deadzone).

 

Case and point - when a hornet driver moves her throttle forward, in the air, thrust is generated.

This is exactly the identical behavior if you repeat the test with your hardware in the flight idle position. Below flight idle your hardware is in an invalid position.

In our case we do not generate thrust - this is unrealistic.

You will if your throttle was not previously in an invalid position. It is realistic.

 

Further, most of our throttles, with exception of the WINWING, have very small throttle travel distance vs. the real jet. Losing 5-10% of your throw is a big deal - it is noticeable, particularly when formation flying.

That's what real Hornet pilots have to deal with.. their throttles are equally limited in flight.

 

I even notice it with the WINWING.

I notice it with the rotary throttle at the base of my Logitech Extreme 3D Pro. And my Warthog throttle. So what? I know in the Hornet there's no need to put it all the way down in flight. You can also give yourself an accurate estimation of flight idle if you practice with the control indicator visible.. with some practice.

 

Mostly, because I've been aware of it in all of the other throttles I mentioned above (I have quite the collection for test purposes).

 

As far as the effort in cording, its minimal.

It's excessive. The current implementation is accurate, takes minor adjustment in technique, and therefore IMO superior to your solution. Your solution is worse. It suddenly allows an invalid position to be valid without input. It moves the virtual throttles even though you made no action to move them. It allows you to eliminate a task that a real Hornet pilot must perform. No, I disagree completely.

 

It's already being done to an extent hence the limiting factor in the air.

Which is accurate, and a feature of this aircraft (this isn't the only aircraft I simulate that does this BTW).

 

Should this be of critical importance? No. But as the module matures this could easily be something that is addressed to make a more seamless application of the sim for our home gear.

I disagree, stop trying to put your hardware in the ground idle position while in flight. Easy.