Jump to content

The more I fly the spitty...


Recommended Posts

...the less I like it.  I can land it- I've even done some wheel landings. But the flight model itself is... not what I'd hoped for. There are three main issues. First: it's way too twichy. I've never flown an airplane (even a Christen Eagle) that was as twitchy as the DCS Spitfire. Even when trimmed out, it's like riding a unicycle on the head of a pin stuck in the deck of a rolling sailboat.

Secondly: I can find no way to make it snap roll.  

Thirdly: There is never any buffet before the stall (which you really need in a sim as there is no sense of motion in the 'seat of your pants'. In real life, the Spitfire gave lots of warning as your AOA and airspeed got close to a stall condition.  The Spit would buffet, and remarkably, in the buffet the ailerons remained effective up to the stall itself. 

Fourthly: well, don't even get started on it's behaviour on landing. Drunken sailors wander less.  A normal landing should be no flaps in the spit. Wheel landings should be routine. Both are possible, but they're never routine. 

I believe that part of the problem lies in the joystick and rudder calibration in the game. Gaming joysticks, like my CH fighter stick, have much shorter throws in all four directions than do the sticks in real airplanes. I think this may be one of the core issues for DCS and the Spitty.

I've fought with stick settings for weeks and literally dozens of hours trying to find some combination of axis settings that might make the spit more well... like a spit.  I give up. It's not that I can't fly the airplane effectively in DCS, it's  that it's just so unlike my experience in real airplanes.  Now I am building an authentikit spitfire stick for sim play. It has a much longer throw in all directions than my CH fighter stick, and when I have it working, I will revisit the Spitfire. 

A good friend I used to fly with (aerobatics pilot on Team Rayban back in the day) flew a Spitfire in England two years ago. He said it was an absolute joy. He did his entire routine with a grin on his face. By his account the spitfire practically read his mind and flew like it was on rails.  

This is not the case for me in DCS, and is the primary reason that I'm not playing online on any of the servers. I CAN fly it effectively, but wow... I had more fun driving grain trucks on the farm. And that's a darn shame, because the cockpit model, the instruments and the way all the systems work in DCS is remarkable! It's just the flying part that isn't so good. Unfortunately, that's kind of the important part.

Any hope for a revision to the flight model?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This echos my experience.  I was very excited when I purchased it, but couldn’t believe the flight characteristics when I started flying it... it gets very little action these days for that reason.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Landing behavior is normal. Talk to former RAF Spit pilots (if any are left alive) and they will tell you she was a "Lady in the air and a bitch on the ground." Flaps down landing is routine. I don't know where you're getting your (incorrect) information.

 

Also, pilots' input on "she flies on rails" or "she does everything I want" is unreliable because they have a) physical sensation of acceleration forces, and b) muscle memory whereby they move their hands and feet subcounciously. "Subconciously" means they won't notice how much they are doing to control the aircraft, and thus will not tell you. 

 

I have no problems handling the DCS Spit at all. 

YouTube Channel: "Clutch"

 

Z390 Aorus Elite | i5-9600k @4.7Ghz | RTX2070 | 32GB DDR4 | Windows 10 | Odyssey Plus | Warthog HOTAS | 20cm Extension

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gotta admit I crafted my own 30 cm Warthog extension years ago first and foremost with DCS Spit in mind, 'cause even though the plane was manageable and fun with standard length and 25-30% curves, precise aiming was still an issue.

 

Extension made a big difference here, and of course it does similar job for all other DCS planes (especially the P-47, which seems to be as twitchy in pitch axis as the Spit).

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think maybe you need more control tuning as you are suggesting. It took me weeks (months?) to get it to a point I am happy.

 

To me, the Spitfire in DCS flies like it's on rails - and is much less of a "b!tch" on the ground nowadays.

 

I've never flown a plane in real life so nothing to compare against but re: the DCS Spitfire, it flies as I expect it should from all the accounts I've ever read about them the last 40 years. Not worth much as a comment, grain of salt, etc. but...

 

FWIW, when I first got the Spitfire I was kind of deflated about how difficult it was to manage. Thought it was perhaps a POS software module and by extension DCS sucked. I was wrong.

 

I noticed two things. Seat time with good controls and rebuilding my gaming computer into a machine that can manage to sustain over 60FPS really made the Spit feel alive in DCS. It made it very easy to handle because the screen allows you to react to what the plane is doing "now" versus what it was doing 30 frames ago or jumping into a "weird" state with no feedback in between frames of "now" and "before" to react to.

 

At least that is my experience.

 

As an experiment, maybe try dropping your graphics settings to get the frame rate up and and mess with the controls a bit more.

 

There is a thread here that talks about setting up the controls. A lot of it depends on what stick/rudder pedals you are using. In my experience a curve around "20" (or similar hand tuned curve if your device merits it) makes a huge difference on the ground handling with the rudder/brakes. My joystick is 15/15 IIRC. Also, make sure you have a decent analog control for the brake lever. Switching the brake lever to the "flappy paddle" on my T16000M throttle made a huge difference.

 

Maybe you have already gone done this rabbit hole.

 

$0.02

 

 


Edited by reece146
Link to post
Share on other sites

RE landing...

 

You don't so much land the Spitfire as sail it into the ground. Lined up, coordinated, flaps, ~110 and idle at the fence line and gliding in with a slow sink rate works with very little bounce.

 

Keep some power on if you are doing touch-n-goes. This will reduce the amount of gyro effect from the engine when you start feeding in throttle again further down the runway.

 

Once down pump the brakes like ABS would and pin the tail with the elevator to drop speed quickly in a straight line.

 

Sorry if you already know this - just my experience within DCS.

 

The rest of the warbirds (except I-16) are bush league simple to handle compared to the Spitfire - even the 109. The locking tail wheel on the 109 makes a huge difference.


Edited by reece146
Link to post
Share on other sites

Reece, I think you're right- that's one way to land it. I've managed to stall it into a 3point, to do a wheel landing and then lower the tail and taxi normally, and 'fly it on to a pseudo 3 point'. In all cases, rudder alone is not enough. You have to pump that brake quickly and often. But the landings are silly hard. My luscombe had a reputation as a tricky taildragger, and it was, but only in a really strong gusty cross wind. Even then, brakes weren't the answer. Rudder control was. IF the plane starts to veer off, trying to get it back with opposite brake won't work, because chances are that wheel is in the air anyway!  I preferred wheel landings in a cross wind.

All landings are silly hard in the spitfire, and it flies in a manner that is both clumsy and twichy. Here's a nice summary of flying ... and LANDING... a spitfire in real life:

Flying the Spitfire - with Mike Potter


The Supermarine Spitfire: has there ever been a more universally admired airplane in the history of flight? Perhaps I reveal a personal bias – after all, I was born in London in 1944 and the Brits’ love for that plucky little fighter may well have been programmed in my DNA – but I think everyone feels a surge of excitement when they approach a Spitfire, especially an airworthy one throwing off the smell of fresh glycol, hydraulic fluid and engine oil.

Forgive more superlatives, but I can not think of another man made object which is so elegantly beautiful in form, and so deadly in function. The remarkable talent of R.J. Mitchell, the Spitfire’s brilliant young creator, shines through.

First impression from visitors is almost always, “It’s so small!” The Spitfire actually has, within an inch or two, the same overall dimensions as its bulky American cousin, the Mustang, but its slender fuselage and curvy elliptical wings tapering to nothing at the tips, certainly make it appear small and almost delicate. Even the slim, tightly cowled engine belies the 1720 HP it can give you. This is truly a wolf in sheep’s clothing and only the four bladed thirteen foot diameter propeller hints at the raw power in this little airplane.

Step up on the wing, ease yourself in the seat and you will find the cockpit snug in a most comforting way. There is room enough to move your hands and feet, but no more. You will feel not that you are sitting in an airplane, but that you have “put it on” like your well worn leather flight jacket. Next, you might notice how simple the airplane is; no complex systems to manage, minimum information displayed. There is logic to this. Once airborne, there is nothing to do but fly and fight. The airplane will take care of itself.

Starting is typical Merlin. Manually prime with the Ki-gas pump – too little and it won’t start; too much and you will have an exhaust stack fire, much to the entertainment of onlookers, but guaranteed to raise your own pulse rate. Once the engine is running, I like to remember the words of my colleague, Rob Erdos: “Once you start a Merlin, your IQ drops by one half.” So the checklist, securely strapped to my left leg, becomes my best friend.

Taxi with great care. The pneumatic brakes, applied with a bicycle-like brake lever at the top of the stick, are feather light and very effective. Since the Spitfire is extremely light on the tail – only 7 inches separates its centre of gravity from the main wheels, compared to nearly 50 inches on a Mustang – she is just waiting to give the unwary a very expensive trip to Hoffmann Propeller for a new prop.

After standard run up and pre take off checks, you are lined up and ready to go. You have just had your last look at the runway since the Spitfire’s long nose gives you no visibility ahead and, with the tail low take-off that the Spitfire requires to ensure prop clearance, that is not going to change on the roll.

Ease the power in sloooowly. It is not visible to the spectators, but that big propeller will give some remarkable asymmetric forces on the take off roll and, with a max power take-off, you will need full right deflection of both aileron and rudder to keep it straight. Keep the tail low and it will fly off uneventfully. Yes, the gear retraction is a bit clunky and you do need to change hands to do it, but that’s part of the Spitfire’s personality and it won’t get you into any trouble.

Now you are ready to experience the magic. Controls are so light and responsive that the airplane seems to go where you want just by wishing it. (Did I really move that stick?) It casts your mind back to that feeling that you were “putting it on” like a jacket. I have never felt so seamlessly integrated with an airplane before. Surprisingly the controls are not harmonized. Stick forces for aileron are closer to being normal, but the elevator forces are extraordinarily light and demand the gentlest touch. And, like all fighters of this era, you need your two feet as well as your hands to fly or she will skid and slip all over the sky.

Considering all the power and performance packed into this little airplane, the stall characteristics are benign. With flaps and gear down and the weights we fly at today, stall speed is less than 60 knots. There is lots of warning, little tendency for a wing drop, and recovery is routine and immediate.

The only challenges on landing are poor forward visibility and the need to be pretty comfortable with three-point landing technique. A gently curving approach to the runway threshold will solve the visibility problem. (And, by the way, all those World War II Spitfire veterans were taught that way and will expect to see it.) Over the fence at 90 knots and a last look speed of 80 knots and you will be well set up. Take a good look at the cross wind as you come short final and program your mind for how much side slip you want to feed in on the flare, because it is not easy to judge the drift once that long nose starts to come up. Flare to a tail low or three point attitude, remembering again how light and responsive the elevator is, and enjoy the arrival. It may jiggle around a bit on that ridiculously narrow undercarriage, but there is no mean streak in this airplane. Although the tail wheel is free castoring, the big rudder is very effective as long as you are reasonable fast with your feet.

Oh, and easy, very easy, on the brakes. (italics and bold print mine- finnster)

At this point it is worth a moment’s thought for the Spitfire’s arch rival in the sky – Messerschmitt’s Bf109. When our Spitfire pilot disengaged from a fight and headed home, his thoughts might easily turn to a beer with his buddies in the pilot’s mess. The 109 pilot, on the other hand, must have still been giving some serious thought to getting on the ground safely. While the Spit is such a pussycat, it is estimated that about one third of all 109’s built were destroyed in take off and landing accidents with major loss of life. It is reputed to be a very difficult airplane to land. (my observation- the opposite is true in DCS. It's absurd).

Taxi to the ramp (or to “dispersal” if you still have your head back to the 1940’s) but waste no time since, on a warm day, that glycol will heat up to the red line in a very short time. The shut down is normal, then pause for a moment to remind yourself what a privilege it is to fly one of the most beautiful and important aircraft ever designed.

And, finally, take a moment to reflect on the remarkable story of R. J. Mitchell. Mitchell started his design of the Spitfire in 1934. Although a young man, still in his thirties, he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer the year before. But Mitchell never allowed his illness to keep him from this vital work. After the first flight of the Spitfire prototype in March 1936, Mitchell lived barely a year. When he died one Spitfire, the prototype, was flying; 20,333 were to follow. He died knowing that he had created a good airplane but having no idea that, within a few years, his Spitfire would change the course of history.

R. J. Mitchell, with the extraordinary Spitfire he created, is an inspiration to us seventy years after his death.

Michael Potter , Vintage Wings of Canada
Photo: Peter Handley.  Photo of R.J. Mitchell: Vickers

 


Edited by Finnster
edited once for clarity and to add bold and italics and a second time to add a comment.
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, reece146 said:

I think maybe you need more control tuning as you are suggesting. It took me weeks (months?) to get it to a point I am happy.

 

To me, the Spitfire in DCS flies like it's on rails - and is much less of a "b!tch" on the ground nowadays.

 

I've never flown a plane in real life so nothing to compare against but re: the DCS Spitfire, it flies as I expect it should from all the accounts I've ever read about them the last 40 years. Not worth much as a comment, grain of salt, etc. but...

 

FWIW, when I first got the Spitfire I was kind of deflated about how difficult it was to manage. Thought it was perhaps a POS software module and by extension DCS sucked. I was wrong.

 

I noticed two things. Seat time with good controls and rebuilding my gaming computer into a machine that can manage to sustain over 60FPS really made the Spit feel alive in DCS. It made it very easy to handle because the screen allows you to react to what the plane is doing "now" versus what it was doing 30 frames ago or jumping into a "weird" state with no feedback in between frames of "now" and "before" to react to.

 

At least that is my experience.

 

As an experiment, maybe try dropping your graphics settings to get the frame rate up and and mess with the controls a bit more.

 

There is a thread here that talks about setting up the controls. A lot of it depends on what stick/rudder pedals you are using. In my experience a curve around "20" (or similar hand tuned curve if your device merits it) makes a huge difference on the ground handling with the rudder/brakes. My joystick is 15/15 IIRC. Also, make sure you have a decent analog control for the brake lever. Switching the brake lever to the "flappy paddle" on my T16000M throttle made a huge difference.

 

Maybe you have already gone done this rabbit hole.

 

$0.02

 

 

 

I'm running an I9900 with 32 megs of ram and an MSI Nvidia 3090. In VR I get between 56 and 75FPS. I've tried every curve recommended in this forum and on youtube. The Spitfire IX would have to get a better FM just to be less wrong.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Nealius said:

Landing behavior is normal. Talk to former RAF Spit pilots (if any are left alive) and they will tell you she was a "Lady in the air and a bitch on the ground." Flaps down landing is routine. I don't know where you're getting your (incorrect) information.

 

Also, pilots' input on "she flies on rails" or "she does everything I want" is unreliable because they have a) physical sensation of acceleration forces, and b) muscle memory whereby they move their hands and feet subcounciously. "Subconciously" means they won't notice how much they are doing to control the aircraft, and thus will not tell you. 

 

I have no problems handling the DCS Spit at all. 

 

22 hours ago, Nealius said:

Landing behavior is normal. Talk to former RAF Spit pilots (if any are left alive) and they will tell you she was a "Lady in the air and a bitch on the ground." Flaps down landing is routine. I don't know where you're getting your (incorrect) information.

 

Also, pilots' input on "she flies on rails" or "she does everything I want" is unreliable because they have a) physical sensation of acceleration forces, and b) muscle memory whereby they move their hands and feet subcounciously. "Subconciously" means they won't notice how much they are doing to control the aircraft, and thus will not tell you. 

 

I have no problems handling the DCS Spit at all. 

Wait. the pilot reports you DON"T like are not reliable, but the entirely anecdotal evidence you provide is?   

I have literally hundreds of pages of test flight data, acceptance trial reports, and pilot operating handbooks for the Spitfire.  None of it agrees with your description of landing performance being 'normal'.  Get one of the guys who flew the spitfire to try the one in DCS. If he tells you it's normal then, I'll be flabbergasted.

By the way, I didn't say I had trouble flying the spit in DCS, I said it was wrong, and not much fun. I stand by both comments.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You do realise there is a huge difference between how an airplane handles in the air, and how it handles on the ground, right? That is not me selectively accepting or rejecting pilot testimony, that is fact.

 

Quote

Get one of the guys who flew the spitfire to try the one in DCS.

 

They already did when the DCS Spitfire was being created, and gave us this realistic representation of it. So stop whining and learn to fly your plane. 

YouTube Channel: "Clutch"

 

Z390 Aorus Elite | i5-9600k @4.7Ghz | RTX2070 | 32GB DDR4 | Windows 10 | Odyssey Plus | Warthog HOTAS | 20cm Extension

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Finnster said:

Controls are so light and responsive that the airplane seems to go where you want just by wishing it. (Did I really move that stick?)

Its not twitchy, the way you control it twitchy. Your joystick is considerably less loaded than stick on a real Spit or whatever acft you have flown. As a pilot you should understand, that in a real airplane you have many “channels” of feedback. Here you have only visual, and audio. No accelerations, no natural feel of the acft on the controls. You control virtual Spit via joystick that controls virtual stick. Your options: buy a good joy with long stick, or DIY.

 

P.S. And you can say whatever you want about “wrong flight model”. No one is giving a thing about it untill you prove it using language of science. 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Реальные хотелки к ЛО3 по Су-25 в основном...

ASRock PG9, i-5 9600KF, MSI 2080Ti, 32GB 3466

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm rubbish and only a simm pilot, so have nothing much to add.

 

I find the Spitfire fine and perfectly stable after triming, landing is a bit tricky, what I do is try to hold it level or nearly level with some power applied. Seems to work nearly all the time.

 

I find the 109 much more of a challenge to takeoff, fly and get down straight.

 

When it was originally launched, the flight model was even more twitchy, but I think its been dialled down a little and the 109 tailwheel friction reduced making it more difficult.

 

I'm using a VKB FBM stick with an extension. Flying without an extension though is whole different ball game, that could easily render it next to unflyable.

 

Can you alter axis rates with your stick, like both the VKB and Thrustmaster Hog can? Reducing the virtual to physical movment might be a place to start to see if you can just fly circuits, then take it from there.

 

Just a thought, I personally enjoy the Spit and fly it quite often

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Weegie said:

I

 

 

When it was originally launched, the flight model was even more twitchy, but I think its been dialled down a little and the 109 tailwheel friction reduced making it more difficult.

 

I

 

 

Just a thought, I personally enjoy the Spit and fly it quite often

Yes, it was dumbed down, to placate the people who couldn't do it, much to the anoyance of people who put the effort in to master it.

And still it goes on.

..

  • Like 1

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 8:21 AM, GUMAR said:

Its not twitchy, the way you control it twitchy. Your joystick is considerably less loaded than stick on a real Spit or whatever acft you have flown. As a pilot you should understand, that in a real airplane you have many “channels” of feedback. Here you have only visual, and audio. No accelerations, no natural feel of the acft on the controls. You control virtual Spit via joystick that controls virtual stick. Your options: buy a good joy with long stick, or DIY.

 

P.S. And you can say whatever you want about “wrong flight model”. No one is giving a thing about it untill you prove it using language of science. 

HOw about using test flight reports from the RAF.  Or my own experience with stalls, spins and stall buffets. Using the language of science is an absurd argument. We know the stall numbers; we know the characteristics of the airplane in the stall. DCS doesn't match those characteristics. Take a number and try again.

On 1/9/2021 at 10:05 PM, Nealius said:

You do realise there is a huge difference between how an airplane handles in the air, and how it handles on the ground, right? That is not me selectively accepting or rejecting pilot testimony, that is fact.

 

 

They already did when the DCS Spitfire was being created, and gave us this realistic representation of it. So stop whining and learn to fly your plane. 

I do realize that. I owned a tail dragger and was checked out on two others. How about you?  Stop justifying bullshit by calling people who point it out whiners. 

On 1/10/2021 at 9:00 AM, DD_Fenrir said:

What controller hardware do you have Finnster?

Ch fighter stick, CH throttle, CH pedals. Work fine.  I AM building an Authentikit spitfire stick. I'm hoping the longer travel of the stick on all axis will translate into smoother flight in DCS. But I seriously doubt it will apply a stall buffet or a snap roll where none is modelled.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/10/2021 at 11:59 AM, Holbeach said:

Yes, it was dumbed down, to placate the people who couldn't do it, much to the anoyance of people who put the effort in to master it.

And still it goes on.

..

So... how much time to you have in real airplanes? I understand the frustration of developing expertise that suddenly is no longer required, but wouldn't you rather have realistic flight?  DCS does some things very well. I think it hits most of the climb and speed numbers, and once trimmed it flies ok. It's just the missing elements (stall buffet and snap roll) that, along with the strange landing behaviours, that frustrate me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, ED "uses" Nick Grey's position in their business structure to ask him about feedback whenever they create and tune flight models for warbirds, so I'll take their word for it, at least for Mustang, Spit and Thunderbolt, 'cause we know Nick has hands-on experience with these. I guess it's the old "my real pilot's feedback is better than your real pilot's feedback" crap that we read on every single flightsim forum in existence.

 

But then again, I suppose even Nick can't say anything about snap rolls behaviour, because restored warbirds tend to be flown at a fraction of their wartime limits for obvious reasons. Buffeting should be easier to evaluate however, I give you that...

 

We'll also have to agree to disagree about landings, to some extent at least. In my opinion as long as one uses small but fast rudder inputs, the things pretty much lands and rolls-out by itself, with brakes required only in the very last phase when rudder is no longer effective. I admit though, that I only use up to small cross-wind component weather conditions in DCS.

 

In the end, I strongly believe you will enjoy the plane more once you've got your new longer stick sorted, so don't give up on it just yet. In my case even 30 cm extension made a noticeable difference.

i7 9700K @ stock speed, single GTX1070, 32 gigs of RAM, TH Warthog, MFG Crosswind, Win10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me, I can do a perfect curved approach at the correct speed crossing the threshold, correct pitch and power settings, touchdown is very good, roll out is good UNTIL, near the end of the roll-out it will suddenly veer - usually to the right and the left wing digs in.

 

Frustrated - any hints much appreciated.

 

Cheers

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Finnster said:

Ch fighter stick, CH throttle, CH pedals. Work fine.  I AM building an Authentikit spitfire stick. I'm hoping the longer travel of the stick on all axis will translate into smoother flight in DCS. But I seriously doubt it will apply a stall buffet or a snap roll where none is modelled.

 

 

Yeah, as I suspected - the truth is much of the buffet in the Spitty is transmitted through the elevator as the turbulent wash from the stalled inner part of the wing (wash-out ensured the tips were at a lower incidence and helped to retain aileron control when the root was stalled) washed over the tailplane so the majority of the buffet was felt through the elevator axis of the control column, which is, I can vouch for, accurately modelled by DCS - but you only feel it if you have an FFB stick (which I am fortunate enough to own). 

 

There are some visual and aural clues but not having flown w/o FFB I'm not sure how useful they are to non-FFB owners.

 

Now the CH stick pots are not renowned for their control resolution, so this maybe part of your problem, particularly in the Spit where mm of stick travel make a difference. I applaud your choice of the Authentikit spitfire stick; though simply for the greater throw and stick displacement per g that it will automatically provide rather than any experience of the product.

 

I hope it provides you with a better experience Finnster, because I have to say, whilst the Spit can be quirky compared to the better harmonised controls of say the Pony, Jug or Fw, once you have a controller you're happy with and the axis curves set right to give you an authentic stick displacement to critical AoA, I find she can be a delight to fly and certainly a very different beast than the 'head-of-a-pin' animal you described earlier. 

 

Good luck, let us know how you get on with that Authentikit product; I would be curious to see what both it and your experiences with it are like.

 

Edit - ever considered a buttkicker or a one of those feedback seat cushions? I have never owned one but some guys really like them. Perhaps worth considering vis-a-vis the FFB issue.

 

 

7 minutes ago, Catseye said:

For me, I can do a perfect curved approach at the correct speed crossing the threshold, correct pitch and power settings, touchdown is very good, roll out is good UNTIL, near the end of the roll-out it will suddenly veer - usually to the right and the left wing digs in.

 

Frustrated - any hints much appreciated.

 

Cheers

 

Got a track or a vid Cats? 


Edited by DD_Fenrir
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi DD_Fenrir,

Not at the moment. I am practicing landings today and if I can't resolve it I will post one.

Thanks for your reply.

Cats . . .

5 minutes ago, DD_Fenrir said:

Got a track or a vid Cats? 

 


Edited by Catseye
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

Yeah, as I suspected - the truth is much of the buffet in the Spitty is transmitted through the elevator as the turbulent wash from the stalled inner part of the wing (wash-out ensured the tips were at a lower incidence and helped to retain aileron control when the root was stalled) washed over the tailplane so the majority of the buffet was felt through the elevator axis of the control column, which is, I can vouch for, accurately modelled by DCS - but you only feel it if you have an FFB stick (which I am fortunate enough to own). 

 

There are some visual and aural clues but not having flown w/o FFB I'm not sure how useful they are to non-FFB owners.

 

Now the CH stick pots are not renowned for their control resolution, so this maybe part of your problem, particularly in the Spit where mm of stick travel make a difference. I applaud your choice of the Authentikit spitfire stick; though simply for the greater throw and stick displacement per g that it will automatically provide rather than any experience of the product.

 

I hope it provides you with a better experience Finnster, because I have to say, whilst the Spit can be quirky compared to the better harmonised controls of say the Pony, Jug or Fw, once you have a controller you're happy with and the axis curves set right to give you an authentic stick displacement to critical AoA, I find she can be a delight to fly and certainly a very different beast than the 'head-of-a-pin' animal you described earlier. 

 

Good luck, let us know how you get on with that Authentikit product; I would be curious to see what both it and your experiences with it are like.

 

Edit - ever considered a buttkicker or a one of those feedback seat cushions? I have never owned one but some guys really like them. Perhaps worth considering vis-a-vis the FFB issue.

 

 

 

Got a track or a vid Cats? 

 

Ok.. that's all quite interesting. Thank you for a well reasoned and logical reply. Still,  I think it's eminently possible to provide more of a visual effect in terms of the stall buffet tho'. I just posted a video on my youtube channel comparing the snap roll and buffet behaviours (hey! alliteration!) of the Spit IX in DCS and Aces High III. I think you'll find my comments on DCS balanced and fair. There IS a lot I love about DCS and the Spit model. But I think Aces High handles snap rolls and the stall buffet better. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, DD_Fenrir said:

 

Yeah, as I suspected - the truth is much of the buffet in the Spitty is transmitted through the elevator as the turbulent wash from the stalled inner part of the wing (wash-out ensured the tips were at a lower incidence and helped to retain aileron control when the root was stalled) washed over the tailplane so the majority of the buffet was felt through the elevator axis of the control column, which is, I can vouch for, accurately modelled by DCS - but you only feel it if you have an FFB stick (which I am fortunate enough to own). 

 

There are some visual and aural clues but not having flown w/o FFB I'm not sure how useful they are to non-FFB owners.

 

Now the CH stick pots are not renowned for their control resolution, so this maybe part of your problem, particularly in the Spit where mm of stick travel make a difference. I applaud your choice of the Authentikit spitfire stick; though simply for the greater throw and stick displacement per g that it will automatically provide rather than any experience of the product.

 

I hope it provides you with a better experience Finnster, because I have to say, whilst the Spit can be quirky compared to the better harmonised controls of say the Pony, Jug or Fw, once you have a controller you're happy with and the axis curves set right to give you an authentic stick displacement to critical AoA, I find she can be a delight to fly and certainly a very different beast than the 'head-of-a-pin' animal you described earlier. 

 

Good luck, let us know how you get on with that Authentikit product; I would be curious to see what both it and your experiences with it are like.

 

Edit - ever considered a buttkicker or a one of those feedback seat cushions? I have never owned one but some guys really like them. Perhaps worth considering vis-a-vis the FFB issue.

 

 

 

Got a track or a vid Cats? 

 

Hi Catseye This extreme behaviour at very low speed is one of the issues I was talking about. If there is no wind, as you come to a stop with throttle set to low or minimum,  there is no reason for the airplane to suddenly head into the woods. Here's what I've found helps.  As you come into land, keep your feet moving on the rudder pedals. As soon as you get the tail down, start applying the brake in gentle 'bumps'.  As you slow keep your feet reacting SLIGHTLY to the motion left or right. Don't get heavy handed.  In truth, once the spit's tail is down and you are slowing on a straight line, there really is no earthly reason other than a sudden heavy gust of wind for your airplane to veer at low speed. The first control to become effective in flight, and the last to lose effectiveness is the rudder.  In real life, once you're so slow that  the rudder has no effect, you should be pretty much stopped. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

II have posted a video comparing the behaviour I experience in DCS to that in Aces High. 

I think you all will find it pretty fair minded.  It's a bit long, (even having two minutes of me flying to an airport edited out), and a bit verbose, but I hope you'll see what I'm talking about. AND what I love about DCS. Sorry the resolution is so low. DCS looks fantastic on my Pimax 8kx, and this video can't do it justice.

edited twice.. once to add the video and once to correct a silly spelling issue.

 

Here's the URL: 

 


Edited by Finnster
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...