|
Post by BH_thedudeWG on Jul 21, 2014 10:03:36 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by BH_Fw_Wingover on Jul 21, 2014 11:58:26 GMT -6
Interesting statement on the Messerschmidt's maneuverability.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Jul 21, 2014 15:26:02 GMT -6
Brings up the point about the physical difficulty limitations of controlling these aircraft at high speeds with non-assisted controls actuation. IMO the lack of modeling these forces on the PC is the one biggest flaw in RoF and all similar flight sims that work the same way. The direct, uninhibited controls actuation at any speed causes all of the foolish, extreme behavior that we see in the way people are able to fly these otherwise accurately modeled aircraft. If you were unable to jerk the elevator from zero to full deflection at extreme speeds, you would not see all this extreme boom and zoom that allows all the high-speed planes in RoF to dominate everything else; what you would see more of would be realistic over-shooting by pilots who misjudged things, and a greater ability to shake off people on your six who come in too hot or don't use their energy correctly. Instead they're all Pitts Specials able to do things they never did in real life. Also you often hear the complaints that the plane is too fragile. Not so, being able to jerk the controls so fast at any speed, of course the wings snap off; it would be a physical impossibility in real life, or at least extremely unlikely in that you'd practically have to bend or break the control column to do it that fast.
Well there is a lot I don't understand about how flight sims work, but I do know it is possible to model these forces, because it was done in another game I had and it was awesome in the way it worked. The faster you dived an SE5a, the longer it took you to pull out of the dive, I don't care how fast or far you moved the stick back. That game was "First Eagles: The Great Air War 1918". There was a response curve that was based on speed....and other parameters of the aircraft, such as the size of the control surface, the weight of the plane, etc. It was not adjustable or anything; it was an integral part of the flight model. The curves would be much like the RoF response curves we have now that adjust how quickly the controls move in any axis, except that the way the plane reacted is what would vary or change.
Anyway it sure made a difference in how you fought with a plane. Sometimes you knew you would only get one pass and you could either go right on past and dive away, or make do with a slower pull up that gave the opposition more time to work a shot on you. None of this practically impervious staying directly above an opponent with complete impunity at all times.
I'm sure there must be a reason they don't do it....probably a processing load thing or something. Maybe the average PC just can't handle it. But the lack of it sure screws things up.
|
|
|
Post by BH_thedudeWG on Jul 21, 2014 16:01:45 GMT -6
It's funny, but this is exactly why I had to crank back down all of my spring tensions (on my Crosswind pedals) after a day or two. My legs were shaking the whole time, and I just stopped trying to zoom my view (left toe brake) after exhaustion. Even at light/moderate settings, my legs still get tired. I can't imagine doing that with the control stick, as well. I love my MSFFB2, but only because it can't beat me in a arm-wresting contest like a real stick could, otherwise it would be back in a box somewhere in the basement.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Jul 21, 2014 17:59:56 GMT -6
I just got my Crosswind pedals and width adjustment plates delivered today. I haven't opened anything yet. I was surprised to find out Milan Flight Gear (MFG) had it's own calibration software.
|
|
|
Post by BH_loopy on Jul 26, 2014 6:49:05 GMT -6
Hawkeye have you tried your crosswind rudder pedals yet, interested in what you think of them.
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Jul 27, 2014 19:12:27 GMT -6
I just mounted them today, deleted my old pedals in Windows and installed and calibrated these. Set Pedals angle to 30 degrees which is equal to the pedal angle on my old CH pedals. I had also ordered the pedal width adjustment plates with a mind to narrow the quite wide stance of the standard setup. The old CH pedals had an 8 inch center to center measurement, with the plate set-up I have now (narrowest) the Crosswinds are at 14-3/8 inches...still much wider than the CH. The first thing I tried was the Dr.1 and the Camel in Quick Mission. I have to say I have a feeling of increased accuracy in the plane controls. It almost seems like I can get them to turn tighter than I used to be able to. The real difference is the old pedals had linear springs, so the feeling did not get any tighter as you approached the end of travel. The new pedals have progressive spring tension; they get harder to push as you approach the end. My belief is that this gives you a better feel for what you are doing, and seems to prevent a lot of over-control or drag from too much rudder. I immediately changed the centering cam to the one with a more pronounced center "detent". But I also have almost the weakest main spring tension set (like Dude). This is to keep it from being excessively hard to reach full travel; but the center feeling is still very ambiguous. I would prefer a more pronounced center feel at the weak main spring tension I am using, so I have written Milan to see if he has a cam with an even deeper center detent but without outer peaks that any higher than the ones I already have.
I have to say that over all I am very happy with them so far, and the software they come with, which allows not only calibration independent of Windows, but also has a viewing utility that I can look at ALL my controllers, all axis, to see how they are calibrated and working. I am sure I can still optimize things a little more if I get another cam, but it is a matter of getting used to them, and I think as is I could really show some improvement over how I used to fly. Also with careful measurement, I got everything mounted so that it fits my needs exactly and there is no way anything is ever going to move, so there is a smooth and positive feel to the whole set-up.
If I had to worry about toe brakes, I would definitely use the lightest of the 4 spring settings, which is the most complicated adjustment, but really not that hard after viewing the Youtube video. But as it is in RoF, I prefer that they be hard to move since they serve no purpose, and feel more solid that way. But it is good to know there is a way to optimize them.
I will say there are basically NO written instructions included with the pedals. However, there are MANY Youtube videos explaining various aspects of adjustments and calibrations. Some of them are a little hurried but one gets the info one needs.
I do feel there is an increase in smoothness and accuracy due to the 4096 digital values or steps, over the 256 I had before. Depending on your situation, it is well worth finding the best way to mount or brace the pedal assembly. There are a variety of options to do this.
I'll try to keep you updated on any new developments, or conferences with Dude. I don't expect much to change from here unless I get a different cam. I can tell you the pedals come standard with a "4" and a "6" cam (or is it 9?), and I am now using the "4" cam, which, when stood side-by-side, seemed to have the deepest center dip; however there was very little difference to notice between the two.
S!
|
|
|
Post by BH_thedudeWG on Jul 27, 2014 21:12:48 GMT -6
BH_OStv. Hawkeye, I agree with you about the lack of a feel for the center position, but I seem to have gotten used to it. It doesn't really bother me any more. For the record, I'm using the #6 cam, mostly because the end of travel felt really stiff using the #4. I did switch back to the inner (weaker) notch, but I still have about 2" of post sticking out behind the adjustment nut, so I could loosen it up even more. I think I'm OK where I'm at now, though. I'll probably take my toe brakes down a notch, as I'm on the third (of four) stiffest settings, and zooming my view still gets exhausting at times. I wanted them stiff to prevent unintentional zooming of my view, which happened all the time with my CH pedals. Using the toe brakes require much my intention with these, so I'm sure I can reduce the tension a lot without negative consequences. I have my pedals a bit more vertical than the CH pedals (not sure of the exact angle) to make deflecting them easier at full forward travel, but I might reduce it a bit. I find that I'm constantly deflecting my right (dead) pedal when I'm controlling my rudder for no good reason, and it's tiring out my right shin/calve. I've been trying to break that habit without much success. I may just leave my left pedal where it's at and drop the right one to a more natural angle. This is one of the best things about the Crosswinds, everything can be adjusted to fit most anyone's needs.
I thought you added the adjustment plates to make them wider! I'm guessing you don't have a center post to contend with as I do. Still, I can't imagine using them at the widest possible setting, at least not with a desk setup. Maybe that's for those low-riding pits that the "pros" have. Let me know what Milan says about the cam. I don't know if I'd want to change, but it may be worth considering ... S!
|
|
|
Post by Hawkeye on Jul 28, 2014 15:32:55 GMT -6
Dude,
I also went to the inner notch on the spring arm (lowest force range) immediately. Even so I only have a few threads more behind the cap showing; almost as weak as it can get. The reason is what you said, it gets pretty forceful near the end of travel; but with that setting it is tolerable or even optimum for me. I haven't heard back about a different cam yet although I know he makes them. I am trying to avoid exactly what you said: inadvertent deflection of the rudder near center, though not for the same reason (fatigue), but instead to avoid inadvertent drag. I don't want to be trying to escape an enemy with max speed and have my rudder partially deflected without realizing it. These things can happen in moments of stress so I would prefer a more exact feel for the center if I can get an improvement. That said, what I have isn't all that bad, I have a feeling the amount of variance in the center is probably pretty insignificant, and that it's also something I'll get used to after more time.
The pedal angle and everything I have set is pretty much optimized for the stationary chair that I use. One thing about the width adjustment plates is that they raise up the pedal assembly more, by the thickness of the plates. However the good news is this can be offset by using the provided hole sets for the foot plates. By using the lowest set of holes, and in conjunction with the pedal angle, the actual height of the heel can be returned to just about what it was before.
Like you said, everything is adjustable and it works out nice. S!
|
|