PDA

View Full Version : here is the link to the review of FB by Captain E "Winkle" Brown WW2 Test Pilot



Taylortony
12-27-2004, 05:46 PM
Thought all of you that heard about it would like to read it

http://www.raes.org.uk/raes/news/SimReview.pdf

SkyPiggies
12-27-2004, 05:58 PM
Excellent, thanks for that

tsisqua
12-27-2004, 07:04 PM
TT,
Thanks for that. I have read a reposting of the article, many times, but to have it saved as a pdf, with all the screenies . . . MINT!

Tsisqua

BlitzPig_DDT
12-27-2004, 08:09 PM
Remember the stir it initially created, with everyone complaining that all the FMs were unrealistic and touting those stick settings? All while forgetting about the little issue of physical stick travel. lol

DD_NL
12-28-2004, 02:48 AM
Does anyone know what all the abbreviations behind the guys name mean?:

"Captain Eric M. Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, FRAeS, RN."

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 02:54 AM
Great Reading!!! thanks a Lot http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

DD_NL
12-28-2004, 02:56 AM
And has anyone tried his joystick settings? I dont have the saitek, but I'll try them on my MSFF2.

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 03:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DD_NL:
And has anyone tried his joystick settings? I dont have the saitek, but I'll try them on my MSFF2. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Havent tried it yet..but im going to ,tonight..
i got saitek...
i`ll post here how it felt!

TX-EcoDragon
12-28-2004, 04:31 AM
The issue with those stick settings is that most of us use a stick that only moves a few inches from center to full travel, in most WWII era (well, or just most aircraft with a center stick) the stick will move about 20 inches from stop to stop, take a guy who has flown thousands of hours with that sort of habit and muscle memory, toss them a stick with 4 inches of travel from stop to stop and they are gonna over-control badly! If he tries to calibrate the stick to give a realistic response associated with a given amount of hand movement then there are going to be problems setting things up to give full travel while retaining the stick ratios. We also run into the stick force issue, in particular with the rudder pedals that we use with PCs. Very little stick force will also add to the feeling of over-sensitivity. I would suspect that this is the basis of those values listed. This is a fun article and a good read but the above issues, make me think it was more of a "lets let Capt. Brown fly it and write down what comments he makes" which is cool, but also not going to really be a fair evaulation of the sim unless you remove the hardware that the pilot interfaces with from the equation. A rudder that takes next to no force at all to deflect is going to seem rather hard to control to someone used to giving larger inputs with forces many magnitudes higher, etc etc. most of us with rudder pedals know that when we plug in multiple controllers to the sim that the sensitivty sliders all go to 100, if he is using the already springy, and hard to modulate CH pedals, and at 100 across the board, things are gonna be a zig zaggy mess if he kicks a boot of rudder into it. If not using pedals then he is using the X-45's rocker rudder, which I appreciate that saitek included, but it is not exaclty a study in precision control. And torque over-modeled. . . there must have been a crosswind! These sim planes have less torque than a 65 horsepower Champ! Read the sentance further and you see that it isn't that it's overmodelled per se, but rather that there is a torque effect that starts too early in his evaluation, this much I certainly agree with, and in addition the transition is rather abrupt often causing a rather pronounced rolling moment, so I can certainly see where he would make this comment, but the writer who took his comments and penned them I think does a slight (inadvertent)disservice to the community by simply stating that torque is over-modeled which it clearly isn't. The effect just needs to be refined, delayed, and in all honesty, increased in magnitude.

Don't get me wrong, this is a fun read, and I'm sure all his observations are valid, I don't really think it's appropriate for us to take it all at face value when being applied to a sim, in particular one with a rather unrealsitc stick. There are certainly many areas where the aircraft are not high fidelity, IMHO this is more in regard to things like the lack of much inertia or aerodynamic stability that is very difficult to model in a sim. This makes the aircraft initial responses rather sharp, and not as dampened as you feel in the actual aircraft. This is an issue with sims, all sims, and for now compromises must be made here and there. I wouldn't sacrifice the rest of the aircraft's flight characteristics to tone down these aspects of the FM though. It might be fun to do some roll rate calculations with this stick settings though, and compare them to book values and see how they stack up.

Edit: I just tried these settings, in the 190 A5 (25% fuel, no ammo) I could hardly make the turn onto the ruwnay (not much rudder authority), I could not lift off even at 200 kmh without the stick fully back against the stop, stalls are flat out impossible, as just to maintain a positive rate of climb required 95% stick travel on my X-45. At 300 kmh an aileron roll takes a fraction under 8 seconds to complete, this comes out to be a blistering roll rate of 45 degrees per second, that is about half of the roll rate a a Cessna 150, and between 1/4 to 1/5 the 190A roll rate from what I know! Simply being a notch or two out of trim required nearly full stick travel to keep things level. . . try the settings and I think it will be rather clear that they were derived not based on aircraft performance directly, but aircraft response relative to a given amount of hand/foot movement. . . even in that light when I first read this I was blown away at what he thinks feels right. . .

I did have some fun with his rudder settings though, it makes the slight torque effect in game a monster that required full rudder just to keep straight! Maybe thats why he thought torque was overmodeled, he only had 16% of his rudder control! ;-)

CWH1089
12-28-2004, 04:36 AM
very interesting, thanks for the post.

LLv26_Morko
12-28-2004, 04:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TX-EcoDragon:
The issue with those stick settings is that most of us use a stick that only moves a few inches from center to full travel, in most WWII era (well, or just most aircraft with a center stick) the stick will move about 20 inches from stop to stop, take a guy who has flown thousands of hours with that sort of habit and muscle memory, toss them a stick with 4 inches of travel from stop to stop and they are gonna over-control badly! If he tries to calibrate the stick to give a realistic response associated with a given amount of hand movement then there are going to be problems setting things up to give full travel while retaining the stick ratios. I would suspect that this is the basis of those values listed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

as i think of it.. i think youre right!!
never thought of it.. thx!

Raptor_20thFG
12-28-2004, 04:48 AM
Great Read I just tried the gentlemen's Control settings felt really really sluggish I had to jerk the stick. However it is very good for aerial gunnery

x6BL_Brando
12-28-2004, 04:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Does anyone know what all the abbreviations behind the guys name mean?:

"Captain Eric M. Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, FRAeS, RN." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Off the top of my head -
Companion of the British Empire
Distinguished Service Cross
Air Force Cross
Master of Arts
Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society
Royal Navy

Jirozaemon
08-11-2006, 10:44 AM
Originally posted by x6BL_Brando:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Does anyone know what all the abbreviations behind the guys name mean?:

"Captain Eric M. Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, FRAeS, RN."

Off the top of my head -
Companion of the British Empire
Distinguished Service Cross
Air Force Cross
Master of Arts
Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society
Royal Navy </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn´t it called Chevallier of the British Empire ?

Edit: according to Wikipedia (Sic!) the "C" stands for "Commander"...

Viper2005_
08-11-2006, 11:08 AM
There was an extensive debate about this review and its implications, paying particular attention to stick forces posted here a couple of months ago if anybody cares to go digging.

My supposition is that with realistic control inceptors somewhat different conclusions would have been drawn.

leitmotiv
08-11-2006, 11:11 AM
I have been using the Brown settings (plus disabling the centring spring) and am well satisfied with them because the airplanes ceased handling like A-4 Skyhawks in TOP GUN. The point is Maddox default stick settings make for a thrill ride and terrific online play but highly suspect models of WWII aircraft. Before Brown the I-153 put on an airshow like a Pitts Special, for example. Now it behaves like a heavily loaded warplane. My thanks to Viper2005_ for a tremendous amount of information on this matter.

Xiolablu3
08-11-2006, 12:06 PM
Very nice, thanks http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Interesting how he praises the flight models and the realistic flight experience. That should shut the whiners up (but it wont, they will continue to whine)

The reaon he needs such relaxed setting is obvious. A joystick has a tiny amount of travel compared to a control stick which sits between your legs and is around 2-3 feet high. He is simply not used to the twitchyness which a small (by real ww2 control sticks standards) joystick, with its tiny amount of travel . If you attached a long stick to your joystick and put it at your feet, using the stick to manouvre, you would get a much more accurate representation of a real ww2 control stick. Pretty simple really.

Modern joysticks are just too small to represent a real WW2 fighter, which is why Eric found them too sensitive.

EDIT: I see EchoDragon has already explained it much better than me http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Divine-Wind
08-11-2006, 12:16 PM
Wow, interesting read. I'm going to see how those settings feel, right now the controls feel like... Well, I've never been in a real airplane (just a simulator, about 6 years ago), but the controls feel a bit quick.
Also, I think he might've made the responsiveness sluggish, not just because the stick's like 3 inches above the base, but maybe because in real life, the controls were attached directly to the ailerons, rudder, etc., so it would take a bit of muscle to move the controls around.

Or maybe not, that may just be my logic at work again.

Crash_Moses
08-11-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by leitmotiv:
I have been using the Brown settings (plus disabling the centring spring) and am well satisfied with them because the airplanes ceased handling like A-4 Skyhawks in TOP GUN. The point is Maddox default stick settings make for a thrill ride and terrific online play but highly suspect models of WWII aircraft. Before Brown the I-153 put on an airshow like a Pitts Special, for example. Now it behaves like a heavily loaded warplane. My thanks to Viper2005_ for a tremendous amount of information on this matter.

Ditto. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Although I did have to tweak the rudder a bit...)

tomtheyak
08-11-2006, 07:37 PM
Have to say I think u chaps flying with Browns settings are WAY off field -

Not that Brown is wrong, just that I agree 100% with TX-EcoDragon: the interface is the problem not the sensitivity curves.

Having aerobatted a Stearman I can wholeheartedly tell you that they will change directions quickly and firmly if you use some muscle.

As for the non stalling characteristics of Browns joystick curves, its frankly baffling why anyone would want to fly like that - if anyone gets on your tail it must be like trying to manoeuvre in treacle. I found the stall in that Stearman and I can assure you that at absolutley no point was I anywhere near having the stick ful back, not even close!

Until someone invents a floor-mounted, 1m long, 1m travel force-feedback (capable of 100lbs stick back-pressure) joystick we will have to make do, just as is the case with 2d monitors (with no peripheral vision), no g-accelerations and no dogfight fatigue, etc....

Just my 2 cents.

leitmotiv
08-12-2006, 04:25 AM
Right and with the Brown/Viper mods you can maneuver using some muscle---now I am fighting with my stick instead of effortlessly whizzing through maneuvers that would have been impossible for an Olympic weight lifter to perform. The other matter is control authority. The default settings make the stick ridiculously sensitive---too sensitive for precision control needed for good shooting or good dive bombing. Read the autobios of WWII pilots: flight was half fighting with the enemy and half fighting with their stick. Brown/Viper feels right to me and until scientifically refuted, I'll stick with them.

VMF-214_HaVoK
08-12-2006, 09:10 AM
Originally posted by tomtheyak:
Have to say I think u chaps flying with Browns settings are WAY off field -

Not that Brown is wrong, just that I agree 100% with TX-EcoDragon: the interface is the problem not the sensitivity curves.

Having aerobatted a Stearman I can wholeheartedly tell you that they will change directions quickly and firmly if you use some muscle.

As for the non stalling characteristics of Browns joystick curves, its frankly baffling why anyone would want to fly like that - if anyone gets on your tail it must be like trying to manoeuvre in treacle. I found the stall in that Stearman and I can assure you that at absolutley no point was I anywhere near having the stick ful back, not even close!

Until someone invents a floor-mounted, 1m long, 1m travel force-feedback (capable of 100lbs stick back-pressure) joystick we will have to make do, just as is the case with 2d monitors (with no peripheral vision), no g-accelerations and no dogfight fatigue, etc....

Just my 2 cents.

Well said. Couldnt agree more. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif