PDA

View Full Version : AEP reviewed by Cpt. Eric Brown



Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 05:27 AM
Hi all

I just received my copy of the Aerospace Professional magazine (a monthly magazine published by the Royal Aeronautical Society) and there was a review by Captain Eric M Brown CBE DSC AFC MA FRAeS RN, who has actually flown most of the aircraft in the sim, including the FW190, Il-2, Me-163, Zero, Me-262, and Gladiator.

"In summary, Il-2:FB offers people the tremendous possibility of experiencing some of the thrills of flying warbirds. The feeling they will get is one of realism - that's how it was. It's wide spectrum of missions and aircraft make it an infinitely interesting game - but a game with a deadly realism, showing you what could happen if you mishandle your aircraft or are outflown by your enemy."

If you are interested, I will type up the whole article for you.

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 05:27 AM
Hi all

I just received my copy of the Aerospace Professional magazine (a monthly magazine published by the Royal Aeronautical Society) and there was a review by Captain Eric M Brown CBE DSC AFC MA FRAeS RN, who has actually flown most of the aircraft in the sim, including the FW190, Il-2, Me-163, Zero, Me-262, and Gladiator.

"In summary, Il-2:FB offers people the tremendous possibility of experiencing some of the thrills of flying warbirds. The feeling they will get is one of realism - that's how it was. It's wide spectrum of missions and aircraft make it an infinitely interesting game - but a game with a deadly realism, showing you what could happen if you mishandle your aircraft or are outflown by your enemy."

If you are interested, I will type up the whole article for you.

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

VVS-Manuc
05-28-2004, 05:30 AM
Yes...the whole article, please

But what does "CBE DSC AFC MA FRAeS RN" mean?

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 05:36 AM
CBE: Commander of the Order of the British Empire
DSC: Distinguished Service Cross
AFC: Air Force Cross
MA: presumably Master of Arts
FRAeS: Fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society (he is a former President)
RN: presumably Royal Navy

OK, I had just got out of the shower when the post came, I'll go and get dressed and have some food then I'll type it up for you.

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 05:48 AM
Here's the article:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> How 'real' are the latest PC sims?

Here in the pages of The Aerospace Professional we occasionally review flight simulations for home PCs which are now getting ever more realistic and graphically rich. Widely thought to be a the pinnacle of WW2 air combat sims is Il-2 Sturmovik: Forgotten Battles (Il-2:FB). Developed in Russia with a team led by Oleg Maddox, the game has received rave reviews from PC gamers, pilots and critics alike for its immersion, attention to detail and rigorous flight models. But how 'real' is Il-2:FB? We asked a special reviewer - the renowned military test pilot, Captain Eric M. Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, MA, FRAeS,RN, Past President of the Society, to evaluate some of these 'virtual' aircraft, the majority of which he flew in real life, from the Il2:FB and the Aces Expansion Pack and comment on what he found.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll type up the rest of the article when I've put the kettle on. See you in 5 min.

PhilipsCDRW

[Edited for format]

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

[This message was edited by Philipscdrw on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:12 AM.]

Zen--
05-28-2004, 05:49 AM
Eric Brown, as in THE Eric Brown?

He reviewed FB?

Holy moly!! Please do post his article when you get the chance.

-Zen-

JtD
05-28-2004, 05:57 AM
Yes, please.

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 06:11 AM
Let me continue...
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The Aces Expansion Pack builds on the earlier Il-2:FB and adds 29 new flyable aircraft, including four varients of the P-51 and Spitfire, biplanes such as the Gladiator and Fiat CR42, jets such as the YP-80 and He-162 and even oddities such as the Mistel parasite combination, Me-163 rocket interceptor and Bf109Z and Gotha Go229 'what-if' designs. Also included are seven new AI-only aircraft, three new theatres in which to fly and a host of new campaigns (offline and online) and single player missions.

For the review, we used a Saitek X45 joystick and throttle HOTAS system (RRP 69). This allowed us keep maximum hands on throttle and stick instead of hunting around on a keyboard - an important consideration with a highly complex sim like Il-2:FB where, if you select the highest realism settings, you will need to control radiators, flaps, tail wheel lock, mixture, prop pitch and other controls. A TrackIR2 head tracking system also shows off Il02's virtual cockpits to best effect and improves situational awareness.

Focke-Wulf Fw190A4

Starting out with the Fw190A4 as a 'base' model to fly we encountered some initial problems. Captain Brown commented that the torque in particular seemed over-modelled - kicking in straight away on low power settings when the real thing was a much more gradual experience. He also observed that the rudder seemed extremely sensitive in relation to the real thing which resulted in some unintended yawing, especially on take-off.
However, by trial and error, we re-calibrated the control settings so that their sensitivity was reduced considerably - bringing them in line with his recollection of the aircraft. The ailerons, he found, were particularly light and allowed the Fw190 to match closely its famous roll rate.
At height, he found that the Fw190 was extremely reluctant to lose speed with a closed throttle, staying at 380kn/h and Captain Brown felt that the loss of speed should have been more substantive. however, once we got to a lower height of around 1000meters and under, the speed seemed to drop off more quickly.
What about combat tactics for the Butcher Bird? "The Fw190 was best employed in the vertical - it could stay in a high-speed dive and then stay in one-third on a turn with a Spitfire IX before breaking off into a zoom climb," said Captain Brown.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Coming soon to a thread near you (very near if you are reading this): his impressions of the Il-2, Me163, Zero, Bf110, Stuka, 262, and J8A!

(actually I'm nervous about spending too long on any one post, as this forum has been known to eat my messages.)

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Extreme_One
05-28-2004, 06:17 AM
Cool!

keep it coming...please!

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 06:30 AM
Part 3 of this epic mini-series:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Ilyushin Il-2 Sturmovik

The next aircraft to be tested was the Il-2 - the backbone of the Red Army's air units and the subject of the original game when it came out in 2001. After reducing aileron sensitivity to match Captain Brown's recollections, we got to a good replication of the heavy ground attack aircraft's handling - and a useful contrast between it and the lighter Fw190 fighter.
The view from the cockpit, which shows the large amount of armoured glass, was recreated exactly but suprisingly did not distort the vision in the real thing.
On the survivability of the Il-2, Captain Brown said: "It was not a particularly good aeroplane. The Russians were tactically naive - it was no wonder the German aces were able to run up such huge scores when there were big gaggles of 50+ Il-2s to attack. I asked Erich 'Bubi' Hartmann (352 kills) once if he had ever fought in the west - he said he had, he hadn't scored once, had been scared the whole time and thought himself lucky to have lasted a month - it was a whole different ball game."

Messerschmitt Me163B Komet

Captain Brown is one of the few pilots who have flown the Me163 Komet and thus is uniquely qualified to comment on and test the virtual Me163. For this flilght we had downloaded a 'skin' (or paint scheme) from www.il2skins.com (http://www.il2skins.com) by an author called Tchaika (where thousands of unofficial free skins made by fans are available for download) of Captain Brown's actual Me163 that he tested in 1947 from RAF Wittering during unpowered glide tests. Interestingly the US took two Me163s to be test flown the same way but never managed to get them into the air.
He noted that the aircraft needed a slight reduction in rate of roll - it being slightly too sensitive in that manoeuvre. After some brief tweaking we managed to get it 'pretty good' according to Captain Brown.
Take-off of the real Me163 needed extra-special care "like being in a runaway locomotive" and great attention had to be made to stop the aircraft "getting away from you." Tail-heavy trim of five degrees was used on take-off and for the explosive climb. In the sim, the aircraft certainly pitched up steeply when full power was applied.
Despite its fantastic speed the aircraft would never have gone supersonic. "It wasn't designed to and would have had compressibility problems," said Captain Brown.
Unfortunately a bug in the game (to be addressed in the very near future in a free downloadable patch) meand that a ground take-off with power (the "sharp start" according to Me163 pilots) does not work but, once in the air, Captain Brown was able to demonstrate the Me163's phenomenal climb rate - "Under four minutes to 40,000ft which, in those days, was unheard of."

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 06:44 AM
Up goes the postcount!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Mitsubishi A6M2 Reisen (Zero fighter)

This early model of the Zero Captain Brown found to be quite accurate - interestingly for an aircraft that was the epitome of a 'turn' or 'angles' fighter he noted that the real thing's ailerons were nothing special - but our settings now seemed to have settled on to happy settings that gave good control harmony and replicated the 'feel' of the wartime aircraft as much as can be with a PC screen and joystick.
He recalled: "The Zero showed the Japanese design philosophy - attack, attack, attack. There was no armour of self-sealing fuel tanks. The cockpit canopy didn't even jettison in an emergency - the philosophy was once you got in - you were staying in until you either came home or got shot down."

Messerschmitt Bf110G-2

With a later fighter-bomber mark of the Zerostroyer (sic) Captain Brown found this to be 'pretty good' - we had evidently managed to find the sweet spot for the control settings. "In the Battle of Britain they were outclassed but made a good nightfighter." how would the Bf110 be fought? "Well, in the Battle of Britain they were used as escorts, flying level with the bombers and using the rear machine gun but they were also be used in a dive and zoom climb attack - one pass before making their escape."

Junkers Ju87D-3

Captain Brown found that the Stuka model handled well generally and tried some practise dive bombing attempts. However, the Ju87's dive brakes seemed to operate unusually - in the real thing the brakes 'locked' once they were deployed, according to Captain Brown, and it also had an automatic pull-out system that kicked in at a certain height and allowed the pilot to escape. However, the chilling sound of the Stuka's siren was replicated - which added to the immersion and the cockpit showed the dive angle etched into the glass at the side - a useful aid in performing the correct dive profile.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Zen--
05-28-2004, 06:49 AM
Amazing stuff, I am quite speechless actually. This is really cool http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

But what did he say about the 190 forward view???

http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

-Zen-

Extreme_One
05-28-2004, 06:51 AM
Cheers.

"according to Captain Brown, and it also had an automatic pull-out system that kicked in at a certain height and allowed the pilot to escape."

I thought that this is modelled in FB -I don't fly the Stukas but I thought I'd read somewhere that since AEP this feature had been addded.

S! Simon
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''
Download the USAAF & RAF campaign folders here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-10.html).

Download "North and South" including the Japanese speech-pack here (http://www.netwings.org/library/Forgotten_Battles/Missions/index-12.html). *NEW*

http://server5.uploadit.org/files/simplysimon-Ex_1_sig.jpg

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 06:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Messerschmitt Me262

The Me262 Captain Brown has described in his classic Wings of the Luftwaffe as "the most formidable warplane" of WW2. It had a high Mach number at which it could be fought - at a speed at which its propellor-driven contemporaries were diving out of control. Investigation showed it to be 'pretty well on the mark' according to Captain Brown who amassed between 50-60hrs on this type in the period following WW2. A mysterious red light that blinked on and off in the cockpit was not a Mach warning light but a pitot head icing warning light - accurate speed readings a necessity in the fast Me262.

Gloster J8A (Gladiator)

The Aces Expansion Pack features the J8 Swedish version of the Gloster Gladiator which has a cockpit equipped with metric dials and comes with skis for winter missions. Captain Brown put the Gladiator through its paces and, executing some low-level aerobatics and loops, showed he had not lost any of the 'Right Stuff' over the years. "It's a bit sensitive on the elevators - but then so was the real thing - so just about right," he said.


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 07:14 AM
FB Ju~87 has auto pull out, perhaps he pulled out above the Default altitude. I forgot what that is.

Great reads Philipscdrw, thanks.

PS:: If you are worried about ubi eating your post, you can type into WordPad or something and cut~n~paste here, at the ubi.com http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 07:18 AM
Annoyingly, he doesn't mention the FW190 forward view. I don't know where that stuff about the Stuka's dive brakes came from either. Oh well.

Last bit now:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>

Conclusion

How realistic can a PC simulator be? "The core of any simulation," said Captain Brown, "is in capturing the harmony of controls of aircraft. Of course, any simulator cannot replicate things 100% but in most of the aircraft tested, it is of the order 80% or so. I found in general the default joystick settings tended to be oversensitive. With my recommended settings it will give people a real feeling of how they actually flew. The flight models in Il-2:FB are done very well. But you need time to cope with this.
"In summary, Il-2:FB offers people the tremendous possibility of experiencing some of the thrills of flying warbirds. The feeling they will get is one of realism - that's how it was. If they apply themselves to this they could get quite skilful and fly these aircraft to their limits - but they will have to realise these limits. In combat, you always hope your opponent is a novice who has just graduated from flying school but it doesn't always work out like that!"
Thus for owners of Il-2:FB the Aces Expansion Pack represents great value in adding 29 new aircraft, some never simulated before, to an already outstanding product.
The final comment we can leave to Captain Brown: "Its wide spectrum of missions and aircraft make it an infinitely interesting game - but a game with a deadly realism, showing you what could happen if you mishandle your aircraft or are outflown by your enemy."


<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There were 2 further box-outs:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Acknowledgement

Thanks go to RC Simulations of Bristol (+44 (0)117 971 5000) for supplying the Saitek X45 joystick and throttle and the TrackIR2 system used in this review.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Captain Brown's Settings

Want to get the most realistic Il-2:FB experience possible? After testing, Captain Brown managed to help define what he considers the most realistic joystick sensitivity settings. If you have a copy of Il-2:FB and would like to emulate this go into Hardware setup, then 'Input' then 'Controls' - when you will find a range of sliders. Adjust these to:

Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

Bringing these down to the values listed in the different axes should make for a much more realistic and true-to-life experience - in what is already a highly realistic warbird sim. Experienced Il-2 flyers may find that these seem to make the aircraft feel more sluggish and less responsive, but these settings will hake take-off and landings easier, as well as manoeuvres requiring small corrections like lining up behind an enemy aircraft or precision dive bombing. It also has to be remembered that vintage warbirds are considerably less agile than modern jet fighters - so that a 'slow roll' seen performed at airshows is very often a WW2 aircraft's max rate of roll - rather than the twinkling roll rate an F-16 might have. These settings bring the handling of aircraft in Il-2:FB more in line with Captain Brown's experience of the real thing and, of course, users can tweak these settings to their heart's content, perhaps adding more sensitivity at 100% deflection so that in extreme dogfights there is still full control authority there at the end of the scale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 07:21 AM
Shame that he doesn't comment on the weapons and damage modelling, or the field of view, or the online play. But it is very nice to know that the flight models are 'pretty much on the mark'!

PhilipsCDRW

"England, on effect is insular. She is maritime. She is linked through her trade, her markets, her supply lines to the most distant countries ... She has, in all her doings, very marked and very original habits and traditions. In short England's nature, England's structure, England's very situation differs profoundly from those of the Continentals."
President de Gaulle, vetoing against British entry to the EEC in 1963.

VW-IceFire
05-28-2004, 07:33 AM
If the veterans (and now we've heard from a bunch of them) say that the modeling in this game feels fairly accurate, to the point where the experience seems familar to them, then I think thats a fairly substantial endorsement that this is a serious and realistic simulation of flight in the early and middle 1940's.

I'm impressed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://home.cogeco.ca/~cczerneda/sigs/tmv-sig1.jpg
RCAF 412 Falcon Squadron - "Swift to Avenge"

jurinko
05-28-2004, 07:40 AM
thanks for posting that. Very interesting.

---------------------
Letka.13/Liptow @ HL

Jetbuff
05-28-2004, 07:57 AM
WOW! Those are pretty drastically "capped" sensitivities. It appears Capt. Brown felt ALL the planes were overly agile/sensitive?

http://members.rogers.com/teemaz/sig.jpg

EmbarkChief
05-28-2004, 07:58 AM
Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

Maybe I'm missing something...

But with these settings you will not get full authority with the control surfaces... Or am I wrong?

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 08:04 AM
Hey, I don't know. I've posted every word of the article except the screenshot captions and the published sys rq!

Maybe it's specifically for the X45. I have a CHPro yoke and pedals and so it probably won't work so well for me!

Work... work... that reminds me... Oh ****, I'm on shift in an hour, I need to find my shirt, phone the salvage yard, and ride a mile and a half through busy suburbia as all the schools empty carrying a large bag on a bike with no brakes.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 08:04 AM
It may be set up for the most sensitive plane he tried...don't know what that would be though.

Just tried it in I~16, at 300km/hr I did not have enough elevator to get near to engine cut out from negative gee.

Anyway, here the magazine briefly takes the role of Gaming Magazine and, well you know... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

JtD
05-28-2004, 08:21 AM
I am not surprised that he find's the plane controls oversensitive. I never pulled my Joystick with more than 5 lb.

A WW2 test pilot is happy with the level of realism and enjoys. Wonder why some of us never-flown-a-plane-guys can't. :-)

stef51
05-28-2004, 08:24 AM
Wow!! Excellent.. I am amazed by his comments. Also interesting in that he tried to change settings accordingly, meaning that many aircrafts do require different inputs settings to be as real as possible... His settings are quite interesting too...

Good work!

Stephen

Hoarmurath
05-28-2004, 08:24 AM
i just tried these settings with a x45... OMG, it made the plane very sluggish, the gliders i have piloted handled better http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

curiously, i managed to shoot down four fw200 with a p38j without too much problems, and without being hit too often, but i would not consider trying to fight fighters with these settings.

mmmmh, should be interesting to make people complaining about some rollrates being undermodelled to try these "realistic feel" settings.

http://hoarmurath.free.fr/images/sighoar.jpg (http://hoarmurath.free.fr/)

Philipscdrw
05-28-2004, 08:27 AM
Lets all contribute money and send an elected member for a flight in that 2-seat Spitfire, to get more first-hand information on how a WW2 a/c flies!

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

bazzaah2
05-28-2004, 08:39 AM
that's a great quote, thanks for taking the trouble to post it.

I had read a few threads that seemed to suggest that FB was more and more arcadeish, without ever really being convinced of that. Nice to know that it is a good rep. of its subject; some flaws, but will look forward to trying the adjusted stick settings.

http://www.endlager.net/fis/pix/banners/fis_banner_05.gif

Crashing online as :FI:SpinyNorman

F19_Orheim
05-28-2004, 08:55 AM
Thank you so much!

http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19bannerA.jpg
http://216.12.202.106/~f19vs/F19banner.jpg

ordway
05-28-2004, 09:07 AM
I tried Mr. Brown's settings. Hmmm, a Spitfire Mk 9 in Aspen Colorado was a firey beast in pitch and actually blacked out a former F-4 driver who yanked it in a bank.

I found it really difficult not to overcontrol it in pitch and yaw for the first minute or so of initial flying. I found in pitch and yaw at 250 MPH that I only needed two inches maximum control movement to do almost instant violent maneuvers at cruise speeds that violently slammed my head against the canopy in both directions just to execute bank maneuvers, loops, etc...but not roll. In ailerons, it was noticeably heavy and different than in pitch and yaw. The faster you went up to 400 MPH, the more this discepancy showed itself.

According to modern warbird pilots I have spoken with, the earlier Spitfire marks were more evenly balanced in conrol axes by having lighter ailerons at cruise speed.

A Mustang in Florida had almost fly-by-wire initial response but then seemed a little laggard at maximum stick response pressures at 250 MPH. At 4+ gs, the Mustang really made me work hard and use my muscle strength especially in roll...it became a two handed aircraft for fastest roll response at 4+ gs.

I agree with Mr. Brown that changing from a WW2 aircraft's control inputs to a computer joystick means that the computer joystick has to be treated with a kid glove...but it can be done and still maintain the WW2 level of accuracy. ie...the computer joystick is easy to overcontrol until you get used to it.

Warbirds Flight simulation went though hell trying to change the joystick settings to less senstitive settings after gamers' complaints. They started out being sensitive as is il-2's and then kept dulling them down for a while.

I personally thought that they made it less and less accurate the more they dulled down the response. Finally, their roll response was as slow as a damaged aircraft in my opinion. The FW 190 seemed as if it's controls had been cut...but it was not like that in the beta models.

Several actual veteran Tuskgee airmen (one was an unofficial ace), who flew online in a one-time Warbirds event recreating some of their missions also commented on how sensitive the computer joysticks seemed to be compared to the actual fighters they flew.

In short, I personally think Il-2 is just fine at its default settings for accuracy compared to the Mustang, Spitfire Mk9, T-6, Stearman and piper cubs that I have experience with.

-Richard

stef51
05-28-2004, 09:14 AM
Thinking about it, his settings prevent full deflection so in theory, all planes won't be able to fly near it's enveloppe...

Am I missing something?

Stef

JG77Von_Hess
05-28-2004, 09:14 AM
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-happy.gif
Big Thanx for this post Phil..
Best read for ages.

Regrads.

VH.

Chuck_Older
05-28-2004, 10:12 AM
Very impressive reading

*****************************
The hillsides ring with, "Free the People",
Or can I hear the echoes from the days of '39?
~ Clash

Boandlgramer
05-28-2004, 10:19 AM
Excellent read.

Boandlgramer
http://images.google.de/images?q=tbn:10LP6FCHtuYJ:www.vhts.de/bilder/wappenbayern.jpg
The first Time i saw Chuck Yeager, i shot him down. Petrosillius Zwacklmann ( WW2 Hero ).
***********************
Who want to be everybodys" Darling ", has to be everybodys Depp .

adlabs6
05-28-2004, 10:27 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by stef51:
Thinking about it, his settings prevent full deflection so in theory, all planes won't be able to fly near it's enveloppe...

Am I missing something?

Stef<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly.



If these are the settings that he prefers: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Bringing these down to the values listed in the different axes should make for a much more realistic and true-to-life experience <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then my settings must be far from reality. Looking at these input settings, the highest number on the full deflection end is 33:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16 <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If what I'm thinking is correct, then you'll never be able to pull more than 33% of what the stick is capable of? I'll go test it now.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 10:34 AM
I especially find the roll stick settings interesting (17% max!). If Mr. Brown is correct then this gives at least one vote to those that suggest that the rate of roll is really overdone in this game. Problem is that you can't use these online because everyone else will have a much higher sensitivity setting.

faustnik
05-28-2004, 10:34 AM
Great post. Thank you Phillips. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

ajafoofoo
05-28-2004, 10:41 AM
Now, don't flame me, but a lot of us are interested in hearing Eric Brown's opinion on the foward view.

Especially since his original test report is an often brought piece of evidence for those who wish the foward view was improved.

He should check out the spits in game and compare to the fw190 and offer an opinion on the subject.

I'd also like to hear what he thinks about the way black outs are modeled too.

CHDT
05-28-2004, 10:46 AM
Very interesting post, thanks!

Btw, I tried the Brown's settings and I liked them.

In fact, I agree with the following:


"I especially find the roll stick settings interesting (17% max!). If Mr. Brown is correct then this gives at least one vote to those that suggest that the rate of roll is really overdone in this game. Problem is that you can't use these online because everyone else will have a much higher sensitivity setting."

With Mr. Brown's settings, the flying of the aircrafts look real, not like "tie-fighters": the aircrafts in FB had always look too much agile to me!

These settings should be standard and not able to be changed for online playing (of course as an option) http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif This way, the online playing would be much more an affair of flight feeling than just brutal turning!

Cheers,

NegativeGee
05-28-2004, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ucanfly:
I especially find the roll stick settings interesting (17% max!). If Mr. Brown is correct then this gives at least one vote to those that suggest that the rate of roll is really overdone in this game. Problem is that you can't use these online because everyone else will have a much higher sensitivity setting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thats interesting..... FB seems to take the approach of modelling the maximum roll the airframe was capable off at a given spedd and altitude.

I wonder if Brown's settings were based (at least in part) on what he as a pilot could tolerate, as opposed to what the absolute maximum the plane could perform. I was thinking this because of what a former F-80 pilot said about its AEP roll rate in this thread:

http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=23110283&m=188103924

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

adlabs6
05-28-2004, 10:57 AM
I just tested the settings on my X45. As I was testing, my brother looks over my shoulder and says... "they move like real airplanes now." The feeling to me was more like what I experience in FS2004 when doing aerobatics in a RealAir SAIA Marchetti SF260, or a Decathlon. The movements in FS2004 are nowhere near as rough and tumble as they are in FB/AEP.

That said, these controls are completely useless in online play or even against AI in the QMB. I was easily out turned by AI planes, and why not... they can use full roll and pitch deflection, I can't. I did verify that stick travel is only around 33% of max on pitch, and 20% or so on roll by pressing the keyboard arrow keys while I had the X45 stick moved to its gimbal limits. When I pressed the arrow key, the stick flew over to max deflection, and the plane started moving at FB/AEP speeds.

I did a quick timed test, rolling the P-51C at 300mph (yes mph, on the dial) took 20 seconds or so. I lost significant altitude during that roll, as rudder and elevator authority were not enough to keep things closer to level.

What does it all mean? I have no idea. But I do know that those settings are useless in an FB/AEP combat environment, where either the AI or a human pilot will use default settings to a very great advantage.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

DeerHunterUK
05-28-2004, 11:05 AM
Excellent read, just a shame Captain Brown's settings would be ineffective ingame.

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.

CHDT
05-28-2004, 11:09 AM
"Excellent read, just a shame Captain Brown's settings would be ineffective ingame."

Exact, and it is a pity, because with Mr.Brown's settings the aircrafs in the game look like warbirds flying in meeting or WWII aircrafts on guncamera movies.

Cheers,

CHDT
05-28-2004, 11:11 AM
And if everybody would use these settings online, the aircrafts paths would be larger and would oblige the virtual pilots to think more on their flying in the 3d dimensions. I don't know how to translate exactly the concept in english, but in french, it's called "systemic of flight"

Cheers,

geetarman
05-28-2004, 11:16 AM
Maybe this control setting issue address a problem I've noticed in FB.

Chase and get close to an e/a from the rear for a gun shot. I'm talking 100 yards and at high speed. Ever notice that when the e/a begins to jink, barrel roll ,dip, etc. it seems to be moving in fast motion! The plane darts, up down, sideways in an unrealistic, jerky way. Sure it throws off your aim, but is that truly realistic? Is this just a lag issue?

Maybe if we all dumbed down the sensitivity, the planes would react in a more proper fashion.

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 11:16 AM
This game is alot of fun, but I have always had an uncomfortable feeling for a while now that these FB planes are unrealistically agile in the way that the controls respond to player input.

It is a bit ironic that in this article Mr. Brown comments on the realism in FB, but at the same time completely trashes (downgrades) the stick settings in order for it to feel realistic for him.

Would you buy a game in which all aircraft responded the way in which Mr. Brown's stick settings suggest? Would you be disappointed and not want to play it? Maybe we already have (original IL2?). Perhaps marketability played a part in the current FMs. I don't know.

As good as FB is the "unrealistic looking" maneuvers I frequently see in it make it hard to describe as an accurate portrayal of flight IMO. Of course it is fun nevertheless, but lets call it what it is - a fun game. Of course, I have not seen one sim yet that I have been satisfied with on a PC.

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by geetarman:
Maybe this control setting issue address a problem I've noticed in FB.

Chase and get close to an e/a from the rear for a gun shot. I'm talking 100 yards and at high speed. Ever notice that when the e/a begins to jink, barrel roll ,dip, etc. it seems to be moving in fast motion! The plane darts, up down, sideways in an unrealistic, jerky way. Sure it throws off your aim, but is that truly realistic? Is this just a lag issue?

Maybe if we all dumbed down the sensitivity, the planes would react in a more proper fashion.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey maybe we should have a Mr. Brown stick setting night on one of the servers? That might be an interesting experiment. If it catches on maybe it might even pique Oleg's interest!

ZG77_Nagual
05-28-2004, 11:22 AM
My settings are pretty close to these during the initial throw of the stick - I do allow full deflection however toward the end.

geetarman
05-28-2004, 11:23 AM
LOL ucan! I'm game - We'll all flop around the sky like drunken sailors.

adlabs6
05-28-2004, 11:31 AM
I would be interested in playing a server with everyone agreed to these settings. I need to get the patch downloaded ASAP.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

Zeroneg1
05-28-2004, 11:33 AM
As I said on another posting..just find somebody (or a dedicated server) who would welcome only people with this joystick settings and accomodate all who would want to fly and dogfight with this joystick settings. Feels more realistic to me now because you really feel the plane's response time.

CHDT
05-28-2004, 12:12 PM
I would love to play on such a server. This could perhaps interest serious hosts like Peter Gul which runs very interesting historic servers.

Cheers,

Charos
05-28-2004, 12:13 PM
Would there be any possibility of forwarding some Questions to Mr Brown via the Magazine editor?.

He may be one of the last guys on earth that could lay to rest once and for all some long standing Questions - especially the FW190 Cockpit comments he personally made.

If he wanted to use a Joystick that you have to force back by pushing with both legs against the table they should have given him a Stock TM Cougar. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Teufel_Eldritch
05-28-2004, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VW-IceFire:
If the veterans (and now we've heard from a bunch of them) say that the modeling in this game feels fairly accurate, to the point where the experience seems familar to them, then I think thats a fairly substantial endorsement that this is a serious and realistic simulation of flight in the early and middle 1940's.

I'm impressed http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some do....not all.

YANKEE ROSE
-----------
http://img19.photobucket.com/albums/v57/Teufel_Eldritch/Avatars%20Sigs/lw2.jpg

ZG77_Lignite
05-28-2004, 12:32 PM
Something that no one has mentioned yet is that Everybody's joystick is different, and thus requires different input settings; thus the reason Oleg has given us the ability to adjust them. Even the same type of Joystick will vary from one to another, depending upon wear or tolerances. If you type in the numbers he used, that does NOT mean you are 'feeling' the same thing that he did (unless that magazine sold that joystick on Ebay and you bought it, then I suppose I'd look silly).

As to the 'dis-allowance' of full deflection, I believe that too is explainable, but I'm hoping someone else will tackle that, because I don't have the time, and it has to do with the subjectiveness of 'feeling' and real life flying (see Ordway's comments above).

VVanks
05-28-2004, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DeerHunterUK:
Excellent read, just a shame Captain Brown's settings would be ineffective ingame.

No1_Moggy
-----
In memory of 'The Few'
http://www.lima1.co.uk/Sharkey/spitfire.jpg
The Tangmere Pilots - http://www.tangmerepilots-raf.co.uk/
Know your enemy and know yourself; in a hundred battles, you will never be defeated.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's realism for ya.

Cheers! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
http://rle.homeip.net/wyn/plane.jpg (http://wyn.vze.com)

alarmer
05-28-2004, 12:42 PM
Iam no expert on the issue but my personal feel has always been that the planes are too agile in the game.

Especially when compared to guncam footages.

Hope something will be doned in BoB, atleast oleg should read mr. Browns text and think it over.

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 12:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ZG77_Lignite:
Something that no one has mentioned yet is that Everybody's joystick is different, and thus requires different input settings; thus the reason Oleg has given us the ability to adjust them. Even the same type of Joystick will vary from one to another, depending upon wear or tolerances. If you type in the numbers he used, that does NOT mean you are 'feeling' the same thing that he did (unless that magazine sold that joystick on Ebay and you bought it, then I suppose I'd look silly).

As to the 'dis-allowance' of full deflection, I believe that too is explainable, but I'm hoping someone else will tackle that, because I don't have the time, and it has to do with the subjectiveness of 'feeling' and real life flying (see Ordway's comments above).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know if I agree with this (unless I misunderstood what you wrote). The last number in the JS setting should correspond to full deflection input of the stick in all joysticks, which if calibrated properly would mean max stick "input" in the game (regulated by stick pressure model). If the above is not true then we might as well never play online because we all would have different available max stick deflection settings.

What is significant is that in Capt. Brown's setup these full delection request settings are 17 % (roll) and 33% (pitch) of what is available in the game meaning that his settings are one sixth to one third of the games settings at max input.

ZG77_Nagual
05-28-2004, 01:10 PM
Gents - it's more than likely Mr. Brown was endeavoring to emulate the 'resistance' of a real aircraft. More granular stick settings enable finer control which, in real planes - is made possible by stick resistance. It is also true that only at higher speeds do you really use full deflection. There is also the matter of stick throw - the distance actually covered by the stick to get a certain control effect - something which is not emulated in flight simms as the sticks are grounded basically at the base of the grip. (some modern aircraft are like this, but not ww2 fighters)

Lignite is also right about the degree of variance with different sticks - I use an ms prec pro - if I switch to my saitek I'm lost. I also simulate resistance at times - such as precise aiming, by useing one hand to create artificial resistance so I don't over control.

I do not think the planes in aep/fb are too agile - but the controls are inherently much lighter than in real aircraft. There is also much to be said about the difficulties of translating real feel into the limited sensory inputs available in a flight simm.

Consequently - while Mr. Brown's comment are certainly important and relevant - another factor is his general familiarity with flight simms per se and the difficulties translating the feel of real aircraft into the simm.

Maulkin
05-28-2004, 01:17 PM
No I think you are correct. That would mean at full stick-down you would only get 33% of a response than someone who uses the full range of their settings.

17% for roll
and 16% for pitch....

Hehe fly the P-47 with that setting and see how it is then. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

http://www.2gvsap.org/chief/indian.jpg
--2GvSAP_Chief

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 01:18 PM
Nobody is posting the aircraft they seem to have success with...most likely late WAR uber planes. With I~16 at 300km/hr sea level I can get nowhere near the needed negative gee for engine cut~out.

Saitek Cyborg Graphite, a very large joystick but came with no software.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Zeroneg1
05-28-2004, 01:22 PM
With all things said considered Mr. Brown's joystick settings for me do seem to make most planes have a more stable platform for gunning just like what I recall seeing from old movies.

Surely each joystick will need to be calibrated but it would be nice to see if the planes you fight online behave just the way it feels with these joystick settings.

XyZspineZyX
05-28-2004, 01:30 PM
Article quote"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Captain Brown's Settings

Want to get the most realistic Il-2:FB experience possible? After testing, Captain Brown managed to help define what he considers the most realistic joystick sensitivity settings. If you have a copy of Il-2:FB and would like to emulate this go into Hardware setup, then 'Input' then 'Controls' - when you will find a range of sliders. Adjust these to:

Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wonder how factoring in the throw of the X45 Saitek effects this "feel"?

I have a HOTAS Cougar, which has a much stiffer throw than any toy Saitek (or Microsoft) produces; even CH products are "light" in comparison to the Cougar.

hos8367
05-28-2004, 01:38 PM
The thing is that at full deflection joystick settings these planes fly according to the numbers. With those settings they will not. Now you have to ask yourself why a real pilot goes with settings that wont allow full deflection. I think its simply becuase hes a real pilot and not a gamer. You have to get used to flying via a PC joystick. The amount of travel etc in a PC stick is far different from a WW2 warbird, and he no doubt was used to real planes, so he dumbed the joystick settings down so it felt right. Theres a big difference between flying real aircraft and flying PC games. Just becuase a real pilot liked some weird settings doesnt mean the game is wrong as some are suggesting. No doubt if he got into IL2 regularly he would get used to the joystick feel and adjust his settings accordingly.

CHDT
05-28-2004, 01:38 PM
I've a Top Gun afterburner II and with Mr. Brown's settings it's very fine to fly the 190 this way http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Taylortony
05-28-2004, 02:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Stiglr:
I have a HOTAS Cougar, which has a much stiffer throw than any toy Saitek (or Microsoft) produces; even CH products are "light" in comparison to the Cougar.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the Cougar sucks, build quality isn't there and its cast in metal that must have come from recast dinky toys...........The software is a step backwards from DOS and it'll cost you a fortune to get the thing in a decent state replacing dodgy gimbles and microswitches, I use it as a dust collector, pedals and all..

Oh BTW I Have one too as well as the "Toy" Saitek and to be honest the "Toy" Saitek is a superior product...

Superb article BTW, best read I have seen for ages http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

tttiger
05-28-2004, 02:20 PM
Excellent article, Phil. Many thanks for posting it.

My only hope is that Eric Brown never sees this forum. Then he'd know what a crop of malcontents fly this sim. Point at the sun and half the people in here will argue it's the moon http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Thank you, sir!

Aloha,

ttt

"I want the one that kills the best with the least amount of risk to me"

-- Chuck Yeager describing "The Best Airplane."

Xnomad
05-28-2004, 02:31 PM
I too have felt that the planes are too jerky the prime example is look at pictures or films of formation flying and they do it so effortlessly you can't do that in this game you move the joystick ever so slightly and you are out of the formation. Especially in a bf 109. I have rudder pedals and centre the ball while cruising but then the roll axis is so unstable that I have a lot of difficulty keeping the plane level. The micro-second I look away from the artificial horizon I am already banking off to the right enough to screw up any formation in an instant.

The same goes for aiming I've always felt that this requires the skill of a Quake III shooter and not a 1940's man who has maybe ridden a bicycle and a car before flying and has no experience like we have had with all our gaming hours behind us.

If I had to have as many hours on stick to learn to shoot in a real plane as I did with the original IL2 then WWII would still be on today and I'm not bad at computer games.

http://www.xnomad.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/sig.jpg

AnalFissure
05-28-2004, 02:56 PM
I agree completely with nazgul.

It seems to me that mr. brown was trying to compensate for the differences in stick length and resistance.

In the real aircraft, a longer stick means finer control over a much greater range of motion.

The shortness of the average computer joystick (when compared to those in real world aircraft) and the lack of resistance, would have combined to give somebody used to the feel of a real stick the impression that the computer joystick was almost prohibitively over-sensitive.

I'd only like to add that I think length-of-stick is the much greater issue, though obviously stick resistance still plays a part.

Just think for a second how much of a difference a shorter or longer stick would make in regards to sensitivity and control granularity.

adlabs6
05-28-2004, 04:12 PM
Stick lenght and different calibrations doesn't matter at all. Try it for yourself. Just set the last slider on each axis to 33, or 25, or 1 for that matter. Plug in ANY joystick made and pull it all the way back. The stick will register only the percentage of maximum pull that you set in the last sensitivity slider box. The calibration box on the FB input slider page proves this.

Prove this beyond any doubt: Move your joystick to an aileron extreme while watching the cockpit stick. While holding the stick there, press the arrow key on the keyboard in the same direction, and pow the stick travels the extra distance that's cut off by the lowered sensitivity setting. The input of the keyboard is not filtered, only the axes.

Please notice that it's not all the low numbers at the front of the list that cause this, but the very last number. It's value represents the maximum input data that will be registered from the assigned axis, at any position.

Now, front and middle numbers will adjust the "feel" of a stick, for greater or lesser pull weight, but it's that last digit that is key to the issue here. This is the same on any joystick that is made.

Just try it yourself. On the FB input page, there is a box that shows stick registry. The red box is showing where your stick is physically postitioned on it's gimbals. The green box is what FB is reading that position as. Notice that with 33 on pitch, you simply cannot get the green box to match the red one, with any joystick you try. Try again with 5, or 60, or whatever number, and presto, the green box travels that percent of the red box's range.

What these settings are doing, in effect, is modifiying the flight model of each and every aircraft. The planes are cut to 33% of the current elevator model, 17% of current aileron model, and 16% of current rudder model. Of course, a generic edit to the flight models of all planes is not optimal for each plane.

It's quite interesting.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

hos8367
05-28-2004, 04:55 PM
I think you're off the point. There is doubt that the stick settings only allow their respective % of full motion. The point is that this pilot is not used to a PC joystick, and he is trying to make it feel like a real plane's stick. The numbers matchup as far as what the planes can do with normal 100% joystick settings. You can't take the joystick settings of someone who has played the game once and say the game is that wrong, even if he is a real pilot (no disrespect to him of course). The fact that he says the plane's FMs are very good relative to one another suggests the sim is very good. The fact that his joystick settings are so different suggests that he is just not used to the joystick, and maybe the game itself (what FOV was he using etc...)

ucanfly
05-28-2004, 05:11 PM
There may be one other point to make here regarding the feel of a stick, namely that it appears that the onset of control surface deflection may be implemented too fast. I don't know if Oleg models this but there should be some appreciable delay between no control surface deflection and full deflection (when it is allowed by stick force model). This to me would also make the aircraft feel and act unrealistically if a large ramp up of stick force is too quick or as instantaneous as your joystick command.

[This message was edited by ucanfly on Fri May 28 2004 at 04:46 PM.]

Taylortony
05-28-2004, 05:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I think you're off the point. There is doubt that the stick settings only allow their respective % of full motion. The point is that this pilot is not used to a PC joystick, and he is trying to make it feel like a real plane's stick. The numbers matchup as far as what the planes can do with normal 100% joystick settings. You can't take the joystick settings of someone who has played the game once and say the game is that wrong, even if he is a real pilot (no disrespect to him of course). The fact that he says the plane's FMs are very good relative to one another suggests the sim is very good. The fact that his joystick settings are so different suggests that he is just not used to the joystick, and maybe the game itself (what FOV was he using etc...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The thing is and what you do not realise is no two planes are the same..... variances in cable tension, wear in bearings, control rods, hinges etc can make a difference between aircraft, I replaced the aileron cables all of the pulleys and rod ends on one and tensioned the cables to the recommended tension....spot on and people came back complaining i had got it wrong as it was too stiff, when in reality it was correct, everything else they were flying on the fleet had wear in the system, a little play in hinged bearings etc and the tensions maybe on the upper or lower limits...all perfectly acceptable but added up made a free're moving system............try driving a car with 5 miles on the clock and one with 100005 miles on the clock and add a soft tyre etc and you will see where im coming from

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 05:21 PM
I once read that Oleg used a full length joystick at a gaming convention with FB, early last year I believe. But they say these things are hard to find.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

adlabs6
05-28-2004, 05:27 PM
You guys are correct, I do see the point here. I just wonder if Mr. Brown set the last slider in error, not realizing it's true power.

I agree that Mr. Browns primary reason for adjusting the controls was the get a feel he was used to, no doubt on this. But with the last slider set below "100" (again, possible oversight?) was he able to fully experience the flight models manuverabitlity? From my game experience, the answer is no.

That's the only point I'm trying to make here.

I'll take it further... I used his settings, but went to "100" on the last slider, and full control deflection was fully re-enabled, and at the same time, his nice smooth flight motions were also there. Granted, the jump between the "27" (next to the last slider) and my "100" (last slider) on pitch was quite violent, nearly enough to cause a stall situation on some planes.

I see Mr. Brown's review as great. Indeed the planes are well balanced for enjoyable gameplay. I just wondered those posted sensitivity settings had an effect on his interpretation of the flight models.

http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/bin/sigUBI.GIF
My FB/FS2004 Pages (http://www.geocities.com/adlabs6/B/) | IL2skins (http://www.il2skins.com) | OMEGASQUADRON | ScreenshotArt.com (http://www.screenshotart.com/home.php)

BfHeFwMe
05-28-2004, 05:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by hos8367:
I think you're off the point. There is doubt that the stick settings only allow their respective % of full motion. The point is that this pilot is not used to a PC joystick, and he is trying to make it feel like a real plane's stick. The numbers matchup as far as what the planes can do with normal 100% joystick settings. You can't take the joystick settings of someone who has played the game once and say the game is that wrong, even if he is a real pilot (no disrespect to him of course). The fact that he says the plane's FMs are very good relative to one another suggests the sim is very good. The fact that his joystick settings are so different suggests that he is just not used to the joystick, and maybe the game itself (what FOV was he using etc...)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Purely supposition on your part, how do you know he didn't do it in response to the flight model itself. We don't, he doesn't say anything about any stick problems or discomfort with it, but does mention flight modeling itself and getting the correct feel and response from each plane.

He carefully evaluated several types and made adjustments as he went, think that qualifies as more than just once.

Is it any wonder the P-47, 190, P-38, and 109 approach the simming using closer to real world tactics since theirs already have a built in stick limiters penalty. The turn till you burn stuff has always been pure fantasy from the start.

LeadSpitter_
05-28-2004, 05:55 PM
see what did i say about the real pilots using slowed down controls and filtering to make the aircraft fly realistically instead of 100 100 100 100 100 100 and no deadzone or filtering. Only if oleg can lock the input numbers sensativities of aircraft planes would moves exactly like the real aircraft.

Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

you wont stand a chance online with those settings

maybe in bob we can have locked input settings as a realism option.

http://img14.photobucket.com/albums/v43/leadspitter/LSIG1.gif

[This message was edited by LeadSpitter_ on Fri May 28 2004 at 05:05 PM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 06:06 PM
You also can't get negative gee engine cut~out in the planes that suffer from that.


Also don't forget the X45 used has very little throw distance given its huge price tag. My 15$ Saitek Graphite moves 6 inches from full forward to full back, and 6 inches from full left to full right.


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Freycinet
05-28-2004, 06:08 PM
A few comments:

I need a full-length joystick. Will they start producing them? There'd be so much more control with a half-meter joystick...

Sitting in a real plane dogfighting is completely different from Il-2FB. All the stress on the bodies of the real-world pilots severely limited their acrobatics.

Another real WWIIm pilot watched an Il-2FB-player and commented: "You don't fly as if you want to come home"...

I think that's a basic truth. In real life you'd always go for the more conservative maneuver, disengage more quickly, generally not do a lot of acrobatics.

The WWII guncam footage usually looks like one very typical situation in Il-2Fb: When you creep up on an opponent and nail him before he sees you. I think that happened A LOT in real life too.

There ARE guncam movies of wild Il-2-like maneuvering too, though. Especially in some of the US guncam movies of Japanese planes...

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 06:10 PM
Freycinet:: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Another real WWIIm pilot watched an Il-2FB-player and commented: "You don't fly as if you want to come home"...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>That's not a flying issue, but a pure game programming issue....such as getting kicked from an onwhine campaign server for..."two weeks"...if your pilot gets killed. Now there we have motivation to be very careful.

Or my idea for offwhine dynamic campaign (a real one) is if your pilot gets killed you can start at the same point in the campaign as a Newbie pilot, with crippled input and Zoom settings, and limited view settings, all of which improve if you survive a few missions.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

ForkTailedDevil
05-28-2004, 06:39 PM
Awesome article. My grandpa is about Mr. Browns age and is not as sharp as he used to be I wonder how much he has really forgotten being that it has probably been over 50yrs ago since he has flown some of these aircraft. I can't remember a lot of things from 10 yrs ago. I wonder how many other pilots are still around I would love to hear there input.

"You can teach monkey's to fly better than that"

WWMaxGunz
05-28-2004, 07:11 PM
Since I got started into serious simming I have always seen comments from pilots, instructors and former combat pilots who kept saying that full deflection is not something you should do much of and never for long. Was Mr. Brown checking out the sim for flight or online combat? I'm guessing the former since there's zip about gunnery or DM.

We can pull our sticks as fast as we want and the response matches within the strength limits of the settings and our pull. The real pilots had to pull against and through so many pounds of force and then hold it, which may explain some of the liveliness of the sim. I think there are words about limits of technology that one sim maker might use about there...

One thing about relaxed settings, you will fly smoother and blow less energy. You may also have to change your style completely and somehow I don't think it'd be all that great at high speeds unless the settings don't apply to the trim and then you'd be able to get full authority after a (slow) fashion using trim.


Neal

Fillmore
05-28-2004, 08:19 PM
I don't think it is the planes that are modelled as too agile, but rather the virtual pilot that is. Your joystick does not control the virtual joystick directly, rather it controls the virtual pilot (and the force he applies to the virtual control stick).

Nest time you fly in combat, make a track and really analyze what you are having the virtual pilot do in terms of the stickforces he is applying, and in particular how he changes his application of stickforce, and how quickly he does it.

50lbs full left, instantly change to 50lbs full right, then stop and 30 lbs back, feel the edge of blackout and come to 50lbs full back as your planes slows. Then 50lbs full forward, stop, 50lbs left and 30lbs back, hold, then reverse to 50lbs right etc., etc. all the while using lead feet on the rudders.

FMing of airplanes has progressed very well over the years, but the pilots are still modelled as being able to apply full force in any direction at any time, change direction immediately and continue to do so indefinitely.

To pull out of a dive, to break turn, to save your life, maybe once or twice in a whole flight, but to continuously apply full force to the stick throughout combat seems rather overmodelled. The changing of force from full in one direction to full in another, all throughout the flight, even more overmodelled.

These stick settings look to me like normal flight, including the majority of time even in a combat situation.

Now look back on all those pilot's recollections of comparitive aircraft performance in combat and understand that what they see is mostly pilot performance, and they themselves often do not realise it, but attribute it to the planes.

Edit to note that in certain respects it can be the planes, but not in terms of FMing but in terms of control harmony, comfort and ergenomics of cockpit, etc. A well harmonised plane that is easy to fly and control is great for actual pilots, but when flown by virtual supermen that we control with our joysticks these virtues become irrelevant.

LEXX_Luthor
05-28-2004, 09:01 PM
Excellent post, thanks, but a huge Pink Elephant on flight sim webboards http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Freycinet
05-29-2004, 12:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Fillmore:
I don't think...[etc.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excellent posting Fillmore.

Bristolboy
05-29-2004, 03:10 AM
Excellent stuff everybody. I think we have a new game people, I tried the settings on a couple of aircraft and these are my initial impressions.

We need settings for individual aircraft and the article suggested that Cpt Brown had adjusted for each but we were only the given the setting for one.

I also found it excellent for the Fw 190 as it was not the best turner but at the same time didn't suddenly drop out of the sky when you bank. The aircraft did not lose e readily even though they may lose substantial amounts of airspeed. On the other hand the power of the engine came into play and you had to use the throttle to control manoevres not just yank the stick back. This had an interesting effect on the sound(psychological?) but that may have been due to using externals more than usual to observe the effects.

While the roll was slow the yawing and pitch controls although appearing to be non-existent actually worked very well once you got used to it. I suspect this is because of the non loss of e which actually renders the control surfaces useless and means you need more movement of the stick to do anything.

The effect on the AI(set to average) was fascinating as well as they started to perform logically and according to the laws of physics using sensible moves and tactics. They were flying in formation and after being chased by a Spitfire while in a Mustang I climbed to evade it. It broke off the chase at a sensible moment instead of appearing to be on the end of a length of bungee attached to my plane.

Overall I found it most refreshing and found that you had to think ahead much more as you would need to be in the best position before you reached target as your speed when you reached it would make it difficult to adjust more than a small amount. You had to use all the control surfaces to control the aircraft and the throttle setting was vital just as it would be in your car. The torque effect really came into play and you had to balance the revs of the engine and control surface manipulation to counteract it. Limiting what you could do as in real life.

While landing it was easier in that it was hard to lose momentum and the settings meant you could perform subtle adjustments without losing your craft.

I would love to know which aircraft the settings referred to and would like to see some more representing each type. An aircraft like the FW 190 probably wouldn't need much invitation to roll as its design was such that it flipped over easily. I will have to delay further experiments as I am off to watch Gloucestershire v Hampshire in the cricket and then off to a beer festival at my local. Have fun

LEXX_Luthor
05-29-2004, 03:29 AM
Try I~16

Red_Storm
05-29-2004, 06:12 AM
Well, it was quite obvious controls were much too sensitive the way they were in FB. Compare FB to some guncams and you'll see how arcade it actually looks, with planes flopping and rolling at high speed everywhere. In real life this just was'n't done for fear of stalling or snap spinning, so these controls are much more realistic.

---
http://server6.uploadit.org/files/RedStorm-sig.JPG

CHDT
05-29-2004, 06:23 AM
So we all agree it could be cool to have an option for online playing to have such controls fixed by the host for all players?

ZG77_Nagual
05-29-2004, 07:45 AM
This would be a bit difficult as players would have to get used to the hosts control settings. So no, I don't think it's a good idea.
I don't really think there is anything wrong with individual adjustments . Full deflection should be available. Heres my ideas.

A: We need a more granular stick adjustment - for example I have the first two thirds of the stick range - which is what is used most - adjusted close to capt brown's settings - a little more between numbers because I am trying to make a curve - but mine is not a straight curve - it starts very gradually then gets steeper after the first half of the range. If we had more points to enter values we could make finer adjustments allowing more gradual control responses - but still within a range from zero to full deflection.

B: Individual stick settings for each aircraft would be ideal.

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2004, 09:19 AM
wow. Interesting thread. Good stuff. Pity that the `realistic` settings are no good for online. Would indeed be good to have it somehow controlled for online and offline ` real` flying.

klemlao
05-29-2004, 10:36 AM
The truth may be somewhere in the middle. With the greatest respect to Oleg and Eric Brown, Oleg will have tried hard to obtain true aircraft data - and I would be surprised if he had been 100% successful, leading to some projection of data - and Eric flew these aircraft a long time ago. Add to that the fact that, even today, a 'current' pilot test flying a 'current' aircraft Simulator for 'feel' can still be a subjective experience, then there is room for conjecture.

A problem with changing an aircraft's FM in FB is that Oleg has probably worked hard to get the right 'balance' between aircraft types. Change one FM to someone's idea of 'real' and it could cause a monster of a chain reaction for the others.

If Oleg wanted to re-visit the FMs for 'realism' he could perhaps ask for a team of volunteers to gather documented data for him (they may find more than Oleg has) and have a team of more experienced FB pilots (which wouldn't include me!)to test fly the aircraft against that data. His own dev. team have probably got more than enough to do than go through all that again!

Then again, I could be being extremely offensive to Oleg and Eric ! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

klem

x__CRASH__x
05-29-2004, 10:39 AM
I read the article. Very informative! Thank you for taking the time to post it for the members here.

I rang Cpt. Brown after I read this thread about the forward visability of the fw-190. He said it was spot on, and that all you luftwhiners should pack sand and give it up.

His words. Not mine.



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Ghost Skies. A Premier IL2FB Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum)

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2004, 11:38 AM
Yes.... Crash...
Just like the time when you gave us the account of Allied pilots who flew capture 109Zs over Berlin to scare the Germans..... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

Actually, now you got me thinking. We accept these accounts with innocent trust, but can we verify all this? Is there a website we can check up?

My apologies for being suspicious, but sometimes...

[This message was edited by SeaFireLIV on Sat May 29 2004 at 10:48 AM.]

SeaFireLIV
05-29-2004, 11:54 AM
Ok, I`ve checked him up Cpt Eric Brown`s real. My apologies and respect to him! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/11.gif

Bearcat99
05-29-2004, 12:36 PM
This does bring up an interesting point though. I have said this often and I will say it again.. If there was one feature I wouls like to see in FB it would be the ability to set individual stick profiles for different planes. Even if you could only do it for say 3 planes.. you could havre one profile set for bombers.. one for T&B planes and one for B&Z planes. It would be a vast improvement. Because of the realism factor of FB there is no way that the same stick settings for say .. an HE-111 will give you the best results in say.. a Spitfire... or a T-bolt, differing FMs not withstanding. The individual F&lt;s are only part of the equation. It is great if you are a one plane pilot.. but if you like multiple planes then it presentsd a problem.

<UL TYPE=SQUARE>http://www.jodavidsmeyer.com/combat/bookstore/tuskegeebondposter.jpg (http://tuskegeeairmen.org/airmen/who.html)[/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>vflyer@comcast.net [/list]<UL TYPE=SQUARE>99thPursuit Squadron IL2 Forgotten Battles (http://www.geocities.com/rt_bearcat)[/list]
UDQMG (http://www.uberdemon.com/index2.html) | HYPERLOBBY (http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/) | IL2 Manager (http://www.checksix-fr.com/bibliotheque/detail_fichier.php?ID=1353) | MUDMOVERS (http://magnum-pc.netfirms.com/mudmovers/index.htm)

USE THAT X45 STICK AS A BUTTON BAY!

Philipscdrw
05-29-2004, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
Actually, now you got me thinking. We accept these accounts with innocent trust, but can we verify all this? Is there a website we can check up?

My apologies for being suspicious, but sometimes...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, the magazine I got the article from is distributed to all members, affiliates, fellows, ect of the Royal Aeronautical Society. I can't be the only member on these boards!

I suppose Cpt Brown could be comparing 3in stick movement in FB to 3in stick movement in a real warbird. My CHPro yoke was very strange with his settings.

I think a full-length stick is manufactured by Copy Cat, at www.simcontrol.co.uk (http://www.simcontrol.co.uk).

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

IL2-chuter
05-29-2004, 01:11 PM
I have a training film on P-47's that repeatedly warns of attempting a split S at (or below) 10000 ft with any amount of throttle. I can easily do full power, full speed split S's from 1000m. I'm Uber http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif!

As a pilot I gotta say that the one variable NOT in the game (note: the game) is the most important: GeForce. And full deflection of controls shouldn't (sometimes can't) be used above maneuvering speed (a structural limitation).

I also find the Buffalo a lot of fun (there goes any possible shred of credibility) and have used it online. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

(It's the airplane armed with paint markers)

"I fly only Full Real in Il2 Forgotten Battles." -Mark Donohue

WWMaxGunz
05-29-2004, 02:11 PM
S! Bearcat! That is exactly one thing we need very much! The ability to
tune, save and have the sim automatically use different settings per AC.
After all, 1C takes pride in the planes being characteristically different!

I doubt that settings by server would work because of different hardware per
player and different planes used on the server. Even if two people have the
same stick, other differences in memory, video, drives and just general speed
will mean the sim is different rates of checking the sticks as well as frame
renders with the result of same stick, different feel and control. It is not
something 1C can control and no way a server can.


Neal

faustnik
05-29-2004, 02:18 PM
Could this be done by having multiple conf.ini files and just going in and renaming them before flying a particular a/c?

It might be kind of a pain, but, worth a try.

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/mdegnan/_images/FaustSig
www.7Jg77.com (http://www.7jg77.com)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=25)

hos8367
05-29-2004, 03:23 PM
I imagine that would work, but you would have to do the renaming before you started the game up. It no doubt reads the files at load. You would have to know what AC you are going to fly before you started up.

x__CRASH__x
05-29-2004, 03:27 PM
You didn't like my 109Z story? Come on! That was a classic fishing trip! And I got a number of bites as well! http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

On the subject of the stick settings, the reason this will never be incorporated into the game is because everyone flies a different stick! My Atari 2600 controller requires some strange settings in order to be usable.

Ghost Skies. A Premier IL2FB Dogfight League. (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://www.rmutt.netfirms.com/crash2.gif (http://www.ghostskies.com/)
CWoS FB forum. More Cheese, Less Whine. (http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum)

klemlao
05-30-2004, 04:27 AM
Lots of interesting opinions.

It seems to come down to physical virtuality vs reality. I am happy to accept that Oleg has modelled controls response ok vs PC controls deflections to give the full range of FM response as best known.

What some people have pointed out is that the physical element is missing. (It is possible that Eric Brown may, as suggested, been remembering the levels of controls movement used for the majority of flying and adjusted the scales to reproduce that.)

What we don't experience is the physical exertion that would initially, and progressively more so, affect our ability to pull on those controls. Al Deere talks of 'sweating and heaving' and Chuck Yeager said that after several minutes dogfighting it could 'feel as though he had heaved a piano upstairs'.

I don't know how Oleg could model that !

If we all had identical profile Force feed Back sticks this thread would probably go in a different direction that would perhaps be more to the point.

If we assume that the controls/FMs are already pretty well correct, adjusting scales for individual aircraft would probably take you away from 'realistic' controls response. We tend to do that to make up for our own abilities or comfort. Also, an on-line %age reduction factor for all players' deflections would probably have a disproportionate effect on the different planes.

I think we have to trust that Oleg has it as right as possible, as near balanced between aircraft as possible and that we are indeed supermen staring 6Gs in the eye without flinching and with biceps bigger than Arnie's.

OTOH perhaps this is the guy we could ask:

http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/258_1081267113_southwood.zip


klem

[This message was edited by klemlao on Sun May 30 2004 at 03:44 AM.]

LEXX_Luthor
05-30-2004, 04:47 AM
SeaFireLIV your instinct of Suspicion is well founded. The magazine here takes the role, briefly, of Gaming Review Magazine, and so...mmm

Still could not get I~16 engine to cut out from negative gee with the Capn's stick settings...mmm

Yough Bear, if it helps you can keep any amount of joystick settings in a text file and cut~n~paste them into "conf" file before firing up the FB. Thanks to Oleg for making FB a very quick starting game--Flaker 2.51, a "fast" jet sim, took me 2 minutes of waiting to load, FB about 12 seconds.

Bear, I have NOT tried this yet:: I bet you could keep all extra joystick settings at the bottom of the "conf" file, where the FB probably does not read anything after the line water = n



__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

AWL_Frog
05-30-2004, 05:20 AM
Guys, to be honest I don't understand the hassle with those stick settings. You want a more realistic feel? Put your stick to the ground and attach a broom handle to it!

Seriously, I think the only point here is the length of the input device. Of course you have better control over the fine movements if you increase the distance which the tip of your stick needs to go for a given response, and this is how the stick in a plane is different from your joystick!

Suggesting that it would be more realistic letting your stick simulate only 30% of the actual movement possible in the real thing? Come on, you are kidding me!

What we really need to see more realistic movement of the planes is a modelling of pilot fatigue. We would think twice about throwing the plane around without a good reason if it would mean that our virtual pilot would be too tired for dogfighting after this!

Cheers,

Frog

Philipscdrw
05-30-2004, 05:01 PM
www.simcontrol.co.uk (http://www.simcontrol.co.uk) manufacture full-length sticks for really well-off simmers, but I suppose if you decide to drive a car with 75% of the engine capacity of the previous, then the fuel savings will cover the costs.

BTW I have no links at all with www.simcontrol.co.uk (http://www.simcontrol.co.uk), I haven't even bought any of their products. I just read reviews in PCPilot.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

reload2000
05-31-2004, 04:37 AM
I dont like the sound of this. People having different settings to make their airplane perform the way they want by just screwing around with their stick settings. I use the difault settings and understand by changing them i can probably shoot something down for once. Hmmm...
Im starting to think that oleg should have a locked stick setting for every aircraft. I think that would sum up alot of problems that poeple argue about.

I think that would probably be the best thing to do. But then again as someone mentioned before, we all have different sticks so this would be a tuff job.

Very interesting though. Im all for locked stick settings for different aircraft and their performance and FM settings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

http://members.cox.net/jakevas/sig6.jpg
The secret of my legendary strength lies in my nutsack
www.ghostskies.com (http://www.ghostskies.com)
http://hyperfighter.jinak.cz/
www.jg27.net (http://www.jg27.net)
http://www.zoloftherockandrolldestroyer.com/zolofbanner2.gif

ZG77_Nagual
05-31-2004, 07:34 AM
there's nothing wrong with being able to customize your stick settings. And alot of how sticks respond in general is really Oleg's judgement call. Translating rw performance into a simm is really as much art as science.
Interesting site on the modified saitek sticks - I happen to have a cyborg 3d gold laying around - seems like a little pvc pipe and some springs or automotive hydraulic tailgate lifts and you could build something pretty cool for cheap.

Philipscdrw
05-31-2004, 08:37 AM
Another option would be to have locked stick settings for every major joystick type.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

Matz0r
05-31-2004, 08:51 AM
When I started flying the FW190 I had problems with the input, the plane would stall at the slightest touch, even if I was going 550kph with nose pointed down giving half stick input would cause a departure. So I changed my settings to soemthing similar to Mr Brown's settings only my max input is 50% - a good balance between maneuverability and stability.

So doing this is cheesy?

The downside is that when you switch to another plane, you're stuck with the FW settings and you cannot squeeze the most out of the other aircrafts - especially turners.

http://home.swipnet.se/hotascougar/pics/p51blamgreysmall.gif

starfighter1
05-31-2004, 09:01 AM
hi,
in respect to all old pilots and veteran heroes of WW-II warbirds... and believe me I met and know a lot of them and the stories we discussed at many round tables in the aero clubs..in the past.
Soon there will be some well restored birds in the air and then we will have new stuff about real views and more by pilots place.
Nevertheless: the virtual view since IL2/FB/AEP(cockpit camera view system to desktop) is a compromise to many planes ..and to some more a bad one.

Anyway:I'm looking forward to the update interface to create a home build cockpit... to get more real feeling view by lcd-beamers and the control of the bird by EPIC systems...
Hope to a modern advanced one with BoB.





<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by x__CRASH__x:
I read the article. Very informative! Thank you for taking the time to post it for the members here.

I rang Cpt. Brown after I read this thread about the forward visability of the fw-190. He said it was spot on, and that all you luftwhiners should pack sand and give it up.

His words. Not mine.



http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/blink.gif

_http://www.ghostskies.com_
http://www.ghostskies.com/
_http://www.acompletewasteofspace.com/forum_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-31-2004, 09:29 AM
hi,
did Mr. Brown also tested some rudders...?

I guess most of this pc-gamer sticks and controls are usefull to Tie-fighters,
and some settings in WW-II combatsims are at all in arcade modus.
By use the control-stick in a prof. two-engine prop-sim (E&S or at NASA,EADS ...) you will get the correct weigh and feeling.
On the other hand ..many well restored warbirds are back in the air..

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
05-31-2004, 09:51 AM
hi,
let's think about a tool call it 'stick to plane settings controler' that can do this in the game.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Philipscdrw:
Another option would be to have locked stick settings for every major joystick type.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

Stalker58
05-31-2004, 11:38 AM
Thsi is very interesting topic. Maybe in the next great Oleg's would be posible to model DYNAMIC settings for joystick.I mean everyone virtual pilot would have a "pool" of G's that could be pulled from take off to landing and the more he used high G maneouvres the more the settings were adjusted for him. Thus the fatigue could be modelled in this way.The pilot who would fly too cautiousless would be soon out of the game and when combined with "death kick" - voila we would get "almost" realistic combat experience at ours fingertips http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Altitude, speed, manoeuvre and.... CRASH!

NegativeGee
05-31-2004, 11:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Taylortony:

But the Cougar sucks, build quality isn't there and its cast in metal that must have come from recast dinky toys...........The software is a step backwards from DOS and it'll cost you a fortune to get the thing in a decent state replacing dodgy gimbles and microswitches, I use it as a dust collector, pedals and all..

Oh BTW I Have one too as well as the "Toy" Saitek and to be honest the "Toy" Saitek is a superior product...

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess my Cougar came from a different production run to yours http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

"As weaponry, both were good, but in far different ways from each other. In a nutshell, I describe it this way: if the FW 190 was a sabre, the 109 was a florett, or foil, like that used in the precision art of fencing." - Günther Rall

http://www.invoman.com/images/tali_with_hands.jpg

Look Noobie, we already told you, we don't have the Patch!

AnalFissure
05-31-2004, 01:49 PM
I'm sorry, but this wanting separate stick settings for each aircraft business is nonsense.

The sensitivity settings are a way of tweaking the OVERALL feel of the game, often to accommodate the different joysticks on the market -- that's its sole purpose. The relationship between each plane in the game is perserved and ramped up or down equally and accordingly when you change the sensitivity settings.

Individual differences in the different planes' stickforces already exist! They have to! The relationship between control surfaces and stick deflection is an integral part of any flight model.

Having separate stick sensitivity settings (the settings that dictate how the joystick hardware interfaces with the game -- NOT how the plane and virtual stick behave) for each plane can only skew and distort the differences that are already intentionally hardcoded in the FM of each and every one of them, and are accepted as part of the design and historical accuracy of the game.

Moreover, the option could only serve to hamper individual flight models, by not allowing full deflection. So, in a sense, what you're advocating by hardcoding these values, is decreasing the attainable performance of certain planes -- WHICH IS ALREADY WHAT THE FLIGHT MODEL DOES -- but to your own liking, and then forcing other people to use those values.

Sorry, but if I'm stuck with any given flight model, I'd rather it be one decided upon by Oleg and his design team, through research and engineering experience, and not one cooked up by some internet nutball server admin.


Getting to the root of the problem, though: There is just no avoiding it. Having a sensitivity regime that is either too sensitive, or not allowing of the full range of deflection is a direct consequence of having these short sticks. And until long-throw pc joysticks are commonplace, there's nothing to be done.

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 01:57 PM
Well said. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif We know now that we can completely eliminate negative gee engine cutout with sufficiently Modded stick settings from Aerospace Professional.

Gaming magazines http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Another thing is I think joysticks are all too easy to move back and forth. They should be more stiff, with stiffness increasing with deviation from center. Now this stiffness should change with airspeed, but that would require a force feed kind of deal, and that I am not into cos of the complexity.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Takata_
05-31-2004, 05:17 PM
All is interesting stuff.

Captain Eric M Brown tweaked pitch, roll and yaw for EACH plane he flew to what he remembered. In some way, he just remade his own FMs.

From his general point, FM's accuracy was overmodeled three time for pitch (max 33%) and about six time for roll and yaw (max 16-17%) vs full FB stick deflection.

This is not about joystick model (wilch could be different for every single FB player) but about maximum deflection in controls (the same for everybody whatever his joystick is).

Including this "historical" mode in FB would mean a complete new FM's for planes. Just ask Oleg to reduce max-pitch to one third and max-roll and max-yaw to one sixth in all FMs and everybody will use the very same settings without any consideration for joystick used.

Pilot's "Fatigue" could be managed the same way as engine overheating. Hard handling will result in "overfatigue" your pilot. After a certain amount of "overfatigue", your pilot will start making strange noise then die.

Every online pilot will recieve the very same amount of pilot's "endurance" when mission start making things even for everybody, no matter if -like about joystick model- one player is in RL 90 kg/200 lbs and the other one half this weight.

For offline game, this "endurance" factor could drop or increase as pilot career follows historical moves from place to place, season-weather, stress, sleeping time, girlfriend meetings, food's quality, etc.

Takata

karost
05-31-2004, 11:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by LeadSpitter_:
see what did i say about the real pilots using slowed down controls and filtering to make the aircraft fly realistically instead of 100 100 100 100 100 100 and no deadzone or filtering. Only if oleg can lock the input numbers sensativities of aircraft planes would moves exactly like the real aircraft.

Pitch 0, 1, 3, 7, 9, 14, 18, 23, 27, 33
Roll 0, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 10, 12, 17
Yaw 0, 0, 1, 2, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16

you wont stand a chance online with those settings

maybe in bob we can have locked input settings as a realism option.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well , I agree with Takata_ and LeadSpitter_

I am not a real pilot so did not fly any real plane yet. but after Captain Eric M Brown who is a real pilot and have experience in WWII plane spend his time to open our eyes ,that is evident to let us see the difference thing for what a real look like and unreal look like.

that would be very good if we have more real pilots with WWII plane's experience help us same as Captain Eric M Brown help us.


S!

LEXX_Luthor
05-31-2004, 11:27 PM
teh real life Capn's joystick settings won't allow you to get I~16 engine cut out with negative gee.

Gaming magazines... http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/35.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Takata_
06-01-2004, 12:37 AM
What about this I-16 stuff Lexx ?
lol

I don't say Captain Brown is right. I just pointed he tweaked EVERY plane with different stick's settings.

Anyway, Cpt Brown is not FB's designer and I can live with Oleg's choices. Both are subjectives way of simulating the same thing.

One is trying to match engineers datas, the other one is trying to match his old feeling.

In term of game design, modeling Pilot's fatigue would be a much radical improvement in attempt to match some kind of historical accuracy. It will bring some great immersion to this game too.

Takata.

LEXX_Luthor
06-01-2004, 12:40 AM
Exactly, you can't get engine cut~out on I~16 with the one~settings for all joystick configuration that the "gaming" magazine suggested. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-wink.gif


__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack


"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Charos
06-01-2004, 12:43 AM
Not to mention that a BF109-K4 Would run out of fuel before you turned it 360 Degrees with those settings. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/59.gif

starfighter1
06-01-2004, 02:36 AM
hi,
by the way: did Cap. Brown also tested the trim function in game ?

anyway : the stuff is interest to think about a new construction of a warbird stick, rudders and even to cockpit home builders..
next:the developer should thing about interaction in game by Force Feedback/and non FB sticks to the programmed FM..and the internal settings to all..
a lot of compromise to PC-sims that simulate not only one plane...

remeber this old discussion about jy-settings since first release of IL-2 .



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Takata_:
What about this I-16 stuff Lexx ?
lol

I don't say Captain Brown is right. I just pointed he tweaked EVERY plane with different stick's settings.

Anyway, Cpt Brown is not FB's designer and I can live with Oleg's choices. Both are subjectives way of simulating the same thing.

One is trying to match engineers datas, the other one is trying to match his old feeling.

In term of game design, modeling Pilot's fatigue would be a much radical improvement in attempt to match some kind of historical accuracy. It will bring some great immersion to this game too.

Takata.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

starfighter1
06-01-2004, 03:35 AM
hi,
here a link to some basics about 'Jonny and Igor Joystick'..
http://www.simpits.org/

look at 'Enginering' ..'introduction to joysticks'

and: some specials usefull simpeds

http://home.t-online.de/home/d-hofmann/homeeng.htm


I don't, if Cap. Brown did use this or should try one time....

As I was imformed by the manufacturer, they work on more realistic stick and rudder settings by different interfaces...

http://www.eichhorn.ws/assets/images/thunderbird.gif

dbuff
06-02-2004, 12:23 PM
JUst go fly the original IL2 -
and use your usual stick settings.

These will be very close feeling to Brown's highly modified settings on FB.

Except you will have full authority......

non solum armis

BuzzU
06-02-2004, 02:57 PM
Interesting comments/quotes about/from Hartmann.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buzz
http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/foto/anderson9.jpg

pacettid
06-03-2004, 05:11 AM
An excellent read! Thanks very much. If I were the moderators, I would put this post up as a sticky for all the 'whiners'...lol...but then again, it wouldn't make any difference.

All the best, Don

609IAP_Recon
06-03-2004, 05:37 AM
Fillmore, excellent post!

"50lbs full left, instantly change to 50lbs full right, then stop and 30 lbs back, feel the edge of blackout and come to 50lbs full back as your planes slows. Then 50lbs full forward, stop, 50lbs left and 30lbs back, hold, then reverse to 50lbs right etc., etc. all the while using lead feet on the rudders."

Now, to make even more out of this - not only do we allow 50lbs stick movement all over the place with no care, but add in full trim and combat flaps - yippee, tie fighters.

I for one find the ability to do this as absurb.

What I would suggest is not to make the settings different, but rather - limit the amount of consecutive 50lb movements in a row.

Sure, you may break hard, but a slight amount of recovery would make it less easy to continue to jerk around the aircraft.

Similiar perhaps to the way trim is modelled, there is a slight delay to movement.

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

609IAP_Recon
06-03-2004, 04:52 PM
I was curious what Oleg would think on this matter, and emailed him, he responded back as follows:

"I respect his opinion but as a developer and with experinece of hardware (joysticks) problems I think he is just partially right.
As a real pilot with his settings he try to simulate LONG stick of control column of real aircraft where he get the "big" movement of the SHORT Joystick stick similar way as real control column (comparing to full defelction values of any joysticks). But by this way he loose maximal possible deflections of rudders, elevators, etc.

I think about 1,5 years ago I posted my settings and then we included in one patch readme recomendations that more or less simulate by more correct way the long stick of real control column by a short stick of Joystick. It looks very close like his settings, but 3 last columns of settings are going smoth higher - the last one 100% high.

So he speaks about autority of the stick, but not FM. It is very different things. Short joystick and long leight control column.... The differences - in the movement of the lever. By other words the movement of joystics is way shorter than the movement of real control column. So you need to move joystick more jentle then the real control column that to get the same angles of deflections.

My personal settings that "simulate autority" of the control column of Bf-109s is:

[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=0 1 3 6 12 21 32 44 61 81 100 0
1Y=0 1 4 8 15 24 33 44 60 77 100 0
1RZ=0 0 10 19 32 43 54 63 74 86 100 0
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
"

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

Charos
06-03-2004, 06:26 PM
Oleg summed it up Nicely - Thangs for Sqeezing his settings out of him again - I have been looking for these for awhile now.

The old forums got vaporized http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/cry.gif

meh_cd
06-03-2004, 09:02 PM
Newbie here - I assume that the settings on the top are the defaults and the ones on the bottom with the '1' in front of all of them are the ones he talks about in the e-mail? I'm guessing it is something like that since the top are the defaults. Heh I'm confused. http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

609IAP_Recon
06-04-2004, 05:21 AM
meh_cd, it's easier in this case to replace the joystick settings in the configuration file I think than typing in the values.

In your forgotten battles directory is a file called conf.ini

if you open it up and look for a section called:
[rts_joystick]
you'll see it's similiar to Oleg's setting.

Make a copy of your settings, then simply copy and paste Oleg's settings over top of what is in the conf.ini.

Hope that helps

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2004, 05:31 AM
Don't forget to backup "conf" file in case you make a mistake.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

klemlao
06-04-2004, 10:22 AM
yes but what are those 1-prefix lines - my first ones are set different to Oleg's (the lines before it are the same) and I have more:

[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1Y=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1RZ=2 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1X1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RX1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1X2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Z2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RX2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RY2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

appreciate any explanations

&lt;S&gt;

klem

LEXX_Luthor
06-04-2004, 10:38 AM
I just tried this with I~16 and I am Happy...

0 1 2 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 100 0

--mmm, without 100 tagged on the end, I can't stall I~16. The lower numbers early in the sequence give great control with tiny stick movements. I am wondering about the input. the 9 squared "81" figure when you think about it is not much lower than 100, and...

...as N gets higher, (N x N) / [(N-1)(N-1)] approaches 1. So I put 64 as the number before 100. 81 just is not much different than 100.

__________________
http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/10.gif Flyable Swedish "Gladiator" listed as J8A ...in Aces Expansion Pack

"You will still have FB , you will lose nothing" ~WUAF_Badsight
"I had actually pre ordered CFS3 and I couldnt wait..." ~Bearcat99
"Gladiator and Falco, elegant weapons of a more civilized age" ~ElAurens
:
"Damn.....Where you did read about Spitfire made from a wood?
Close this book forever and don't open anymore!" ~Oleg_Maddox http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/images/smiley/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

609IAP_Recon
06-04-2004, 03:28 PM
I use this:

[rts_joystick]
X=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Y=0 1 4 9 16 25 36 49 64 81 100 0
Z=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
RZ=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
FF=0
U=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
V=0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0
1X=3 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y=2 0 20 40 60 80 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1X1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Z1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1X2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Y2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RX2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V2=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1Z=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RX1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1RZ1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1U1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0
1V1=0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0

Salute!

IV/JG51_Recon

http://www.forgottenskies.com/jg51sig2.jpg

Philipscdrw
06-15-2004, 04:45 AM
Just found out that the RAeS have a PDF of the article on their website. You can reach it via the first link in my sig.

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here (http://www.aerosociety.com/raes/news/SimReview.pdf) and discuss it here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

MaxBruder
06-16-2004, 02:53 PM
These settings are all I fly now. I'm still a novice but I'll go with what a man with experience in the real thing says.

pacettid
06-20-2004, 06:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MaxBruder:
These settings are all I fly now. I'm still a novice but I'll go with what a man with experience in the real thing says.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think Oleg's response/settings, posted above by JG50_Recon, are the most realistic and the best compromise for short, electronic joysticks. Unfortunately, these settings will put you at a hefty disadvantage when playing on-line, so I use Oleg's for single player, and more agressive settings online.

All the best, Don

Ironman69
06-22-2004, 01:27 AM
by using Oleg's stick settings..does this give the airplanes a "mushy" or "sloppy" feeling to the performance?

Kondor99
06-23-2004, 05:14 AM
I find that my MS FFB2 stick, with the spring turned all the way up, nicely dampens out my tendency to overcontrol.

I feel that a mechanical spring leaves a lot to be desired when compared to the motors of a FFB stick.

In particular, the X45 (which I use for LOMAC), has an especially lousy springing system when compared to a FFB stick.

Philipscdrw
06-23-2004, 09:16 AM
I fly with a CHProduct yoke http://ubbxforums.ubi.com/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif . Because it has about 6 inches travel in each direction it is nice and easy to fly with a degree of precision. It is hard to go back to a joystick now...

PhilipsCDRw

"Nietzsche is dead." - God.

View Cpt. Eric Brown's review of FB here (http://www.aerosociety.com/raes/news/SimReview.pdf) and discuss it here. (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=400102&f=63110913&m=309109534&r=875101634#875101634)

DFLion
06-16-2006, 06:25 PM
For your information (especially Philipscdrw) here are some excerpts from Capt. Eric Brown€s actual flight test report article, flying a captured Fw190A-4 (Ref. Air International Feb 1976 Vol.10 N0.2 €" cost 45p?)
He has written a superb account of flying this aircraft and when reading it, you can only admire what a fantastic pilot he is and how he totally enjoyed every aspect of flying. I think Capt. Brown flew just about every German WWII aircraft €" including the He162, which is another fascinating article.
His glowing endorsement of Oleg Maddox€s flight sim is a great tribute to Oleg and his team. I won€t get into the joy stick debate €" a bit out of my field.

€œI was pleasantly surprised to find, after clambering into the some-what narrow cockpit, that the forward view was still rather better than was offered by the Bf 109, the Spitfire or the Mustang.€

€œI soon felt completely at home in the cockpit. After lining up for take-off, I moved the stick to an aft position in order to lock the tail wheel, applied 10 degrees of flap, set the elevator trimmer to neutral and the propeller pitch to AUTO and gently opened up the engine. I encountered some tendency to swing to port but easily held this on the rudder, and using 2,700rpm and 23.5lb(1.6atas) boost, found the run to be much the same as that of a Spitfire Mk.IX.€

€œA remarkable aspect of this fighter was the lack of re-trimming required for the various stages of flight. There was no aileron trimmer in the cockpit, but if the external adjustable trim tab had been inadvertently moved €" an out-of-trim force of considerable proportions could result at high speed.€

€œDecidedly the most impressive feature of the German fighter was its beautifully light ailerons and its extremely high rate of roll. Incredible aileron turns were possible that would have torn the wings from a Bf 109 and badly strained the arm muscles of any Spitfire pilot trying to follow. The ailerons maintained their lightness from stall up to 400mph (644km/h), although they heavied up above that speed.€

€œThe elevators proved to be heavy at all speeds and particularly so above 350mph (563km/h) when they became heavy enough to impose a tactical restriction on the fighter as regards pull-out from low-level dives.€

€œAt low speeds rudder control proved positive and effective, and I found it satisfactory at high speeds, seldom needing to be used for any normal manoeuvre.€


This great article is far too long to be fully reproduced in this thread. I hope it gives you a good idea about how passionate Capt. Brown is about his former test flying. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

DFLion

JamesBlonde888
06-18-2006, 07:50 PM
Legend Legend Legend.

Thanks for posting this.

Buzzsaw-
06-22-2006, 08:38 AM
Salute

I feel what Capt. Brown is noticing, is the lack of inertia modelled in the game.

The fact is, it takes some time for an aircraft to begin to feel the effect of the application of control surfaces, particularly in the case of ailerons.

Full roll rate cannot be accomplished instantly, instead as a pilot applies ailerons, the aircraft begins to accelerate into lateral movement.

The initial inertia of certain aircraft, in particular such as the P-38, with its very wide span wing, provides a very slow acceleration into full roll rate. This is not modelled in the game. Aircraft in the game respond immediately at full rollrate, even when reversing the direction of an existing roll. In fact, the inertia of an aircraft, for example, in a roll to the right, would dictate that a pilot reversing the direction of roll, would see an effective deceleration of the existing lateral movement, into a PAUSE, or complete cessation of lateral movement, then finally an acceleration from zero movement back towards full speed in the opposite direction.

Capt. Brown has tweaked his stick settings to try to model this, and in doing, has reduced overall maneuverability perhaps too much.

The fact is, aircraft such as the 190 should have advantages in their initial acceleration into maximum rollrate. Aircraft with short wingspans, and ailerons positioned at the tips of the wings, and with square cut wingtips, are much faster in their lateral response. This is particularly the case when an aircraft reverses the direction of roll. When we read the famous pilot reports on how it was impossible for a Spitfire to follow a 190 through a series of rolls back and forth, this is exactly what the writers are describing.

Conversely, aircraft with longer span wings, pointed wingtips, and with ailerons located further back from the tips have less immediate response. A classic example is the Spitfire, and the improvement in lateral response seen in the clipped wing version, when the pointed wingtips are removed, thus squaring the wingtip, and effectively placing the ailerons closer to the tip.

NACA did a detailed study of various aircraft of the WWII period, to determine the effectiveness of various designs.

Complete report can be found here:

http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/1947/naca-report-868.pdf

Aardvark184
06-22-2006, 08:13 PM
Has anyone else noticed any problems with toe brakes not releasing under Capt. Brown's settings? On most aircraft, I could not get the brakes to release for taxi or takeoff. I double checked by reverting the control settings back to default, and they worked just fine. To clarify, this is only with my CH Pro rudder pedals.

P.S. I also noticed in my control setup there is only pitch and roll available to change; yaw does not show up at all.

Thanks!

Tim

FoolTrottel
06-23-2006, 12:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P.S. I also noticed in my control setup there is only pitch and roll available to change; yaw does not show up at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Try and use the utility mentioned in my Sig.

TX-Gunslinger
06-23-2006, 12:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by NegativeGee:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Taylortony:

But the Cougar sucks, build quality isn't there and its cast in metal that must have come from recast dinky toys...........The software is a step backwards from DOS and it'll cost you a fortune to get the thing in a decent state replacing dodgy gimbles and microswitches, I use it as a dust collector, pedals and all..

Oh BTW I Have one too as well as the "Toy" Saitek and to be honest the "Toy" Saitek is a superior product...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I guess my Cougar came from a different production run to yours http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Mine too. About two years ago, I bought the UberII mod. Best investment I ever made. Several folks from the community have been to my house and flown on it. They all said the same thing. "I frickin hate you Gunny, now I have to get an UberII mod and a Cougar. You should never have let me touch it." I have no detent (you know that annoying bump in the middle of X-Y travel) and the spring centered action is smooth like you wouldn't believe. The tension is significantly less than a stock cougar with rubber boot. If you have a Cougar and fly IL2 mainly, I'd recommend removing the boot and leaving it off or replacing it with a "beer cooler" (see Cougarworld).

Haven't had any issues with my Cougar. The software BTW, if you spend the time to learn it, allows you to do things many things you can't with the other sytems. It did take me a while to master it, but that's what you have to do in order to program it fully.

I've been laughing to myself during the many pages of this thread as people try to find that one, global set of settings that works best for all aircraft. It does'nt exist. If you want to fly Spitfire's and then switch to Focke Wulf's it's a little difficult to obtain maximum performance from each A/C. Oleg's settings are close to my baseline, but they are too gradual for many low-wingloaded A/C in the sim.

This is why my top rotary is programmed for two different settings. In normal mode, it's for prop pitch. Click the button in and out and it switches from auto to manual. The part that relates to this thread however, is that when I hold the shift key down (base of my joystick) and actuate the rotary, it now changes my joystick sensitivity, which I dial in during flight. Yes I change it based on the aircraft I'm flying and sometimes the type of flying I'm doing. If I want maximum 'E' retention during manuvering, or if I find myself in the heat of a fight and see the wingtip votices too often (sometimes in an intense dogfight after too much coffee), I'll dial it back. Want to keep your Mustangs wings on in a dive to 900Kmh? Takes a very very gradual pullout (Same for D9 now).

There are many other things I've been able to program over the years to make up for limitations within the sim. For example, ever try to toggle all your bombs off an FW-190F8 or A6U17?
Can't do it unless you can generate three drops simultaneously. I actually have my dogfight switch (3 positions) set up to in the following manner:

Left position - switches cannon/mg firing order on my trigger.
Center position - default - each firing press releases a single bomb group at a time. Useful for precision work when no enemy fighters are present and I want to make 3 separate attacks.
Right position - Pickles all bombs in rapid succession. Great for one pass all bombs drops on many aircraft (yes, they are very close together with minimal spread).

I bought a Saitek about a year ago, to take on travel so I could play online. I tried to make it work for me, but couldn't. Not only did it feel, well, like cheap plastic, I had nowhere near the programming flexibility. I wanted to program it as near my Cougar as possible. It was'nt possible. I've given it to my brother. Most folks that know me, will tell you that I pack my Cougar with me when I travel. Of course I use a shock case and foam and it's gone as Checked baggage several times. So much for delicate.

BTW Taylortony, if you want to get rid of your dust collector, I'd be happy to take it off your hands. PM me if you want to sell it.

S~

Gunny

WB_Outlaw
06-23-2006, 04:04 PM
GS is right, for pure capability you can't beat the Cougar. Unfortunately you have to spend more than you paid for it in mods (or do it yourself) to get it up to snuff. I threw my Cougar away (after throwing it through the wall) and got a Saitek X-52. It's better off the shelf and with a slight reduction of the center spring, good enough for me. The Saitek bang for the buck is very high. I do miss the ability to calibrate the stick in flight though. I'm hoping that BoB will have per aircraft stick settings instead of the universal one we have now.


--Outlaw.

Sillius_Sodus
06-23-2006, 11:49 PM
Hi,

Interesting discussion, but I do have one question:

Bristolboy wrote: "The effect on the AI(set to average) was fascinating as well as they started to perform logically and according to the laws of physics using sensible moves and tactics. They were flying in formation and after being chased by a Spitfire while in a Mustang I climbed to evade it. It broke off the chase at a sensible moment instead of appearing to be on the end of a length of bungee attached to my plane."

Does this mean that the AI in the sim will fly using the joystick settings adjusted by the player?

As for the comments that using EB's joystick settings make dogfights look more like gun camera films, I've found that going to 1/2 speed while using the sim's default joystick settings does the same thing. I only fly offline mind you .

Good hunting,
Sillius_Sodus

Chuck_Older
06-24-2006, 11:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sillius_Sodus:
Does this mean that the AI in the sim will fly using the joystick settings adjusted by the player?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I should think not, as the Ai doesn't use control inputs from an external device

Aardvark184
06-24-2006, 12:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FoolTrottel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">P.S. I also noticed in my control setup there is only pitch and roll available to change; yaw does not show up at all. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif Try and use the utility mentioned in my Sig. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Fooltrottel, thank you for the link to your utility. It is more than I expected, and very useful. I'm going to try those settings again, and I'll post the results later.

Tim

msalama
06-25-2006, 02:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I feel what Capt. Brown is noticing, is the lack of inertia modelled in the game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could very well be, because this is probably the worst shortcoming of the whole series.

Fly whatever we have, and then fly, say, the RealAir FS2004 Spitfire Mk.XIV for comparison, and I'm sure you'll notice a huge difference in inertial modelling. That Spitfire is nimble, of course, but she has some mass too! Unlike - if I may add - what we've got here http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

That said, I do think that the Peshka is markedly better in that sense. But is it just me, or a foretaste of things to come? We'll see.

PS / EDIT: For an adequate comparison a Spit-vs-Spit test should of course be used. A Mk.XIV we don't have, but how about the FB Mk.IXe against the RealAir machine - would that be a meaningful match? And the same with CW versions, too, to see how the faster rolling machines compare... FWIW, I _did_ fly the ellipsoid winged machines back-to-back myself (nothing (pseudo)scientifical though so no datasheets included) and I did notice a marked difference...

heywooood
06-25-2006, 09:38 AM
ok - here's my problem with this whole 'joystick calibration' thing.

Why is it adjustable at all?...why?
Because there is no standard for PC 'stick mfg's???

So its about the rate of the deflection of the control surface of each plane - not the max deflection?

But wouldn't the rate of deflection depend on pilot strenght and not joystick construction in a real aircraft?...

And control surface stiffness at various speeds should be modelled into the FM of each plane and not subject to 'control settings' of a PC joystick - right?

I mean - when a pilot checks his control surfaces preflight - he walks around the plane and physically moves each aileron / elevator / rudder etc...looking for ease of movement and FULL DEFLECTION - right?

If the movement is not fluid and smooth - he doesn't fly the plane - if there is not full deflection - he doesn't fly it.

Now full deflection of an aileron of the P-51 is not the same as full deflection of the same control surface of a C-47 right?... so that difference in the game should be modeled on the airplane in game and roll rate of each plane should be correct based on that difference and not the 'joystick settings'...yes?

So what the hell are we talking about here?
If control settings - these sliders - are present only to make flying easier for noobs - and there is a default setting mind you - then why aren't they explained in the readme?

And why isn't there an official listing of correct joystick settings for realistic control?

It should be the same for every plane and every PC joystick because regardless of the difference between one plane and another as to what max deflection is - all planes have it...and as to the rate at which the control surfaces can be moved or the strength it may take to move them...that should be inherent to the plane model - not the individual PC joystick. WTF?

Fact: if a pilot cannot get full deflection of a control surface by moving the control column or rudder pedal or flap actuator or throttle / prop control - he does not fly that airplane period. Also - if there is any stiffness or un-even movement in any cockpit control preflight - that airplane does not fly.

WWMaxGunz
06-25-2006, 06:45 PM
Turn yourself around enough times and it's easy to get confused.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by heywooood:
ok - here's my problem with this whole 'joystick calibration' thing.

Why is it adjustable at all?...why?
Because there is no standard for PC 'stick mfg's??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And no standard CPU clock, no standard RAM amount or speed, etc, as well.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> So its about the rate of the deflection of the control surface of each plane - not the max deflection?

But wouldn't the rate of deflection depend on pilot strenght and not joystick construction in a real aircraft?... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Contruction of the stick and what leverages and throws are below and throughout the plane,
balance points of control surfaces, weights added just for control and other design goodies
all go into it.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> And control surface stiffness at various speeds should be modelled into the FM of each plane and not subject to 'control settings' of a PC joystick - right? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

From here I stop the point by point because you are confusing simulation with reality.
To some extent less than perfect but as close as possible ALL of the things you mention
are modelled. *As Possible*.

You move your joystick and how far modified by your sliders says how much strength the
virtual pilot applies to move the control stick away from center. However what has been so
far allows your pilot to pull the stick as fast as you move your joystick right to the limit
of backforce vs strength commanded. So your pilot can go from position corresponding to
zero strength (wherever the stick is trimmed to) to position corresponding to full strength
in a small fraction of a second in the case of a stick twitcher. If you work out hard and
regular and have heavy bones then it is possible maybe, half my life ago I shadow-boxed
holding 25 lb dumbells to develop power but I have pretty big arms (not the biggest by far!)
and only kept it up for so many seconds at a time.

The way you go on is a short road to hysteria. Why do you think there has been so many
threads about 109 elevator? It is because control forces and stick leverages are in the
model.

The only thing you adjust with stick sliders is how your pilot reacts in strength applied
to your joystick moves but never can you get extra by sliders or by trim.