Hey all!
I made a thread on the BoS forums to try and discuss the bouncy pitch controls of the Axis planes, and to see if this was supposed to be like this, or was a bug. I made this video for the thread, but sadly it was closed before I could post it.
All planes compared:
Original Video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUyjF-hAL9c
I like the fact that I was able to somehow get the 190 into an inverted spin....that was fun.
Last edited by BlitzPuppet; Sep-22-2014 at 15:59.
I always wondered this myself.
Gaidin
Probably closed because the subject has been flogged to death.
It'll be interesting to see how an F4/G2 and A3 react in DCS compared to BOS.
The best thing to do is move the joystick as it would in reality i.e. not instant movements and see what happens - this is what I do and I have no bounciness at all. In DCS my D9 was very bouncy until I resolved the curves.
Hood
I use a expencive yoke I do not recognize this at all, I heard that some tweaks are needed for those using digital joystick. It does not nesserserarly mean the fm itself is wrong
Weird, I use a CH Fighterstick and have been good to go out of the box with DCS and CloD. No adjustments needed to those.Originally Posted by LuseKofte
Oh well, it is a beta and I hope they tweak the controls a bit...better yet maybe I'll mess around with them. From what I saw in the controls it's 1:1 as far as input goes as it stands.
You should also show negative huge stick push betwenn DCS and BOS in Fw 190 ( 109).
Still rudder is overdone in BOS in DCS much better modeled.
Im waiting for DCS K-4 i really wonder how they make FM for it.
Good point, I'll make that in another video. I was going to show a comparison with TF CloD, but couldn't get fraps to record the game (only got audio).
DCS is pretty on par with CloD TF, so that is a good thing. BoS on the other hand is WAAAAY out there.
BOS models 1:1 joystick so with any non-full length stick you need curves to mimic the real thing. That or hardly move the stick.
Waaaaay out there depends how much you understand the differences between the games.
Hood
I don't get what you mean. Every single flight sim I've ever played models the joystick 1:1. That means if my joystick is in the middle the elevator is perfectly in the middle. It also means that if my joystick is moving forward, the elevator is moving inversely proportional to my joystick, right up to the point of the end of my joystick travel which will be the end of the elevator travel. Same with ailerons. Same with ruder pedals etc.
So essentially all my control surfaces that are controlled via the joystick are in the middle of their travel when my joystick is and also at the end of their travel when my joystick is. Are you saying BoS doesn't do this and needs a curve to make up for it? That's a pretty bad design flaw then.
"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself". - Archibald Macleish
.
Last edited by trademe900; Sep-09-2014 at 16:23.
Hehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones
It's definitely true. Not sure if they are being biased or what, but I do remember them saying "we're going to do things in the name of historical accuracy, never in the name of 'balance' "Hehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones
One of my buddies that I fly with is an old timer and has flown a lot of sims since the old days. He says "The german planes are hard as hell to fly, while the russians fly like a f'n canary!"
Well I read that many have to tweak their sticks in bos , and this give a better handling. We may make a big discussion over it or just ride along.
However it would be nice for once to get a report if it worked out. So I do not have to give this vague tip to anyone else if it does not work.
I totally understand everyone with a issue against bos site and the game itself, it haven't yet proven itself the way I hoped for either.
However betting on only one limping horse to keep up this hobby , I take one more any time
I was talking about BOS specifically. I'm sure others do too. But my subjective feeling is that other games have programming to ameliorate the 1:1 relationship to allow for people using 6" to 10" sticks as opposed to the real thing. Inbuilt curves if you will otherwise why would they all be some different?
Quite right. That is what 1:1 means in my context - you do understand.
Every flight sim I've played has needed curves for me - IL2, CloD, DCS D9 and BOS. Every flight sim must have bad design flaws then. Or maybe that's my fault for never using a full length plus FFB stick.
I believe the joystick curve that Winkle Brown set to replicate controls for IL2 was way lower than what most used. Probably a good idea to take a leaf from his book to get something closer to real handling.
Hood
But was that actually the truth? The Spitfire was awesome because not only was it a great plane but it was a great plane for the inexperienced pilot to fight in. The 109 took a lot more taming.
Yet everyone is claiming the 109 is an easy ride - so who is correct?
But as I say, play with the curves and everything is nice and smooth.
Hood
What does stick length have to do with a having to set curves for a 1:1 relationship? Any good programming with flight sims will obviously cater to the fact that a usb joystick has a center and an end point in all directions. Regardless of length, the movement of the axis at the base is what matters.
When you combine the fact that most joysticks (high quality one's at least) have a range of motion to include around 300 points around an axis in it's entire range of movement, then you'll also see that having a longer stick only means you are having to move the top of the stick further to do the same job (reach one of those 300 points) That is exactly why you don't have a mouse pad that's the size of a kitchen table to go from every single edge of your screen with the mouse pointer. And that is because people can control fine movements quite easily with devices made to do just that.
The fact of the matter is, if you have to move curves around to slow down/speed up this 1:1 relationship then it's obviously not very well done to begin with. I buy good joysticks/Hotas so I don't have to do that EVER for any game.
Of course I do. As stated above, I think you are the one not understanding this. If you have to adjust curves to get a proper 1:1 relationship between the control surfaces, then something is most definitely wrong with either the game or your stick.Quite right. That is what 1:1 means in my context - you do understand.
I would say it's most definitely the quality of your stick then, or possibly it could be your hand coordination with small movements etc. I don't do it. I had to with ROF because planes like the SEA5 were not programmed with the elevator in the neutral flying position, when your joystick was in the neutral position (right in the middle). Instead the elevator was pointed at such a way that the plane would basically loop on it's own without touching the joystick. Everyone set curves for that or had some major wrist pain.Every flight sim I've played has needed curves for me - IL2, CloD, DCS D9 and BOS. Every flight sim must have bad design flaws then. Or maybe that's my fault for never using a full length plus FFB stick.
You're now comparing a real life flight column and stick to a usb joystick? Just to let you know, the stick forces of any FFB stick, let alone the majority of sticks that have a generic spring in them, will NEVER EVER come close to the feedback, let alone force, that a pilot will feel on a real life flight column.I believe the joystick curve that Winkle Brown set to replicate controls for IL2 was way lower than what most used. Probably a good idea to take a leaf from his book to get something closer to real handling.
Hood
So please don't think that someone's real life curve for flying a real life plane will in anyways be anywhere close for someone that's putting his hands against some FFB device or a cheap charlie joystick spring. This is probably one of the worst advices you could give to someone.
"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself". - Archibald Macleish
I think you need a bit more reading on the subject. The 109 was often spoke about as one of the easiest and most stable planes in the air. The main problem with the 109 always stemmed from takeoff/landing. But the actual flying dynamics (which is what we are talking about here) is obviously incorrect in big way in BoS.
You mentioned earlier about a dead horse on the subject. You can probably see why that horse gets beaten to death now. It's obviously quite wrong and many people are complaining about it. Sad to see they are banning people because of bringing up the issue though.
"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself". - Archibald Macleish
There is no question , at least in my mind, there is a severe rubber banding type of effect.
It used to be so on all the planes, they have cleaned up the Russian planes somewhat and made them much better, but not so much in the German planes.
Now understand I do like and fly BOS, maybe not as much as Cliffs but I do enjoy it , for what it offers. I am really glad they improved on that in the Russian planes as that is what I mainly fly , still some there but no where near what it was. I do think the German planes need some attention in this regard.
But this of course, just my humble opinion.
Don B
EVGA X79 Dark MB | Intel I-7 4820K@4.50 ghz | Corsair H100i Cooling System | 16 GB Corsair Dominator Platinum 2133 Mhz ram | EVGA GTX 1080 FTW|2 ea Samsung 840 Pro 256 GB SSD's |NZXT Phantom 820 Case | TM Warthog w/ 7.5cm Ext by Sajah|MFG Crosswinds Pedals|Oculus Rift|Windows 10 64 Bit |
I never had the impression of any rubberband effect on Russian planes, they got and had not historical fm to some degree.
Like I said earlyer, my floormounted yoke give me a totally different expirience about german planes and their conduct. I do not like their behavior, but in totally different way explained here.
Based on my impression the behavior on axis planes are too straight forward,
Sorry Bliss I really have no idea what you're on about.
A 1:1 relationship means that any % movement on a joystick equates to the same % movement of the linked control surface. No doubt you'll agree.
To mimic the movement of a full length stick a standard un-extended joystick would have to be moved tiny amounts and requiring such fine motor/hand control it is probably not possible for the majority of simmers. This is without factoring in the physical force needed to move the stick in reality.
To clarify, I can't remember where I read it but a loop in a Spit required pulling back the stick around 5cm. On a pc joystick that would equate to maybe 5mm (I'm too lazy to do the actual math for a number of joysticks).
If you read my post again you will see that I do not say you have to play with the curves to get a 1:1 relationship. I'm not sure why you'd think that at all. What you need to do is play with the curves to get away from the 1:1 relationship so as to improve control.
Regarding Winkle Brown why do you think they were his curves for flying a real aircraft? In reality he'd be stuck with however the real aircraft was set up. His IL2 settings were:
Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
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
I suppose this was because full deflection on the pc joystick would equate to 1/3 (pitch) movement of a real stick. You'd have to ask him his reasons though. I tried but didn't like them - too slow for me, though I ended up with the Spit limited to 60 and the 109 to around 85, and it was extremely rare that I went out of control.
Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to stick with the game settings if they can find a curve that helps them fly more like the real thing. I have a Warthog so it's a decent stick. It's also one of the longer pc joysticks out there, but curves are a massive help. To anyone that says that their aircraft bounces in BOS, change the curve to get it more "real".
This brings up another point - how far could a pilot actually deflect a combat aircraft joystick. There are accounts of pilots heaving on sticks to pull out of a dive, or having to use trim to do so. Does this mean they could not physically deflect the joystick at all? What about in level flight at 400km/h - could you really instantly push the stick all the way forward? Rather than 100% deflection could you only deflect the stick say 10% and more as you slowed? Yet we can yank on a stick and do all sorts of things real life pilots couldn't or wouldn't, yet complain when things happen "wrong".
For the SE5a this was modeled correctly as the real aircraft had 10 degrees forward stick needed to level the elevator. Maybe they shouldn't have got it right if people needed curves to be able to use it...
And another aside -
"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."
Hood
The one reason for me like flying BOS is the excelent characteristics of the Russian planes, in my opinion Nothing in cod are as goodHehe i got 3 days ban on BOS forum casue i wrote in rubberband topic that German fighters got more noticable rubberband effect then Russian ones
Yea russian planes in BOS fly much more natural way then German ones - dont have such strange behaviour like with negative push flick roll or rubberband effect.
It still is. Not because the spit is much easier to fly but because:
1.- A spit can turn to get you out of trouble. A 109 can't
2.- It takes practice to learn how to BnZ (required for a 109).
3.- It takes experience to not get sucked into a turn fight in a 109 (see #1)
A real control column in most WWII fighters actually has much less range of motion than, for instance, my CH stick which is around 100 degrees. So if you put a very long extension on that stick it would be even further from a realistic column which has an axis that moves much less than 100 degrees. If a control stick in a real 109 had 100 degrees of axis movement (from end to end) the only way that would be even possible is if the real stick was pushed right through the dash in one direction, or sticking through the pilot's body on the other side of the axis.
So while a lesser quality/less range of movement stick might have less range of movement and require someone to add an extension to it to be able to use it properly, realize there are devices out there that compensate for this right out of the box.
That is why I told you you don't need a mousepad the size of a kitchen table to move your mouse around and be precise on a large computer monitor. It's the same principle. While I'm sure there are people that have their mouse setup to move it several inches to go from end to end of their screen, mine is setup about a 1/3 of that.
On top of that, ROF/BOS does not model stick forces correctly and never has. That is why you could slam the control column forward in ROF and the elevator would slam forward at about the same speed. Where as in games like DCS/CloD, there is programming built in to make up for the stick forces and the strength and time it would take to actually be able to move the stick in full deflection, all based on speed, AOA etc.
I'm sure you've seen enough of the BoS videos showing this funky chicken dance all the planes seem to do with just going front to back with the stick. Now try that in any game that actual models real stick forces, (or try it in a real plane for example), and you'll see how impossible that is.
I don't think you understood what I said. I stated you can't compare the feeling, stick forces, etc., of a real control column to ANY joystick. Without those stick forces and without a good quality stick, as I've already stated, I could see someone needing to use curves. But since I'm a flight simmer, playing flight sim games, and will never get that same stick forces transferring through my arm, I use a joystick that's very precise and designed specifically for flight sims. Again, if I need to modify my joystick, or massively change it's settings to be able to fly a flight sim correctly, BOS/ROF would be the only flight sim I've ever played that required it. Perhaps other flight sims are programmed around the fact that people use usb joysticks to fly them and not real controls?Regarding Winkle Brown why do you think they were his curves for flying a real aircraft? In reality he'd be stuck with however the real aircraft was set up. His IL2 settings were:
Captain Eric Brown's Settings:
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
Again, my joystick has more range of axis motion than virtually any Warbird. The exception would probably be the side to side spade grip in a spitfire. But that exception would go for any other usb joystick comparing to the side to side spade grip as well.I suppose this was because full deflection on the pc joystick would equate to 1/3 (pitch) movement of a real stick. You'd have to ask him his reasons though. I tried but didn't like them - too slow for me, though I ended up with the Spit limited to 60 and the 109 to around 85, and it was extremely rare that I went out of control.
This is a good point, and why I stated earlier DCS/CloD/and even old IL2 models stick forces per speed/AoA etc. Lets hope BoS/ROF will finally that part down as well.Personally I wouldn't advise anyone to stick with the game settings if they can find a curve that helps them fly more like the real thing. I have a Warthog so it's a decent stick. It's also one of the longer pc joysticks out there, but curves are a massive help. To anyone that says that their aircraft bounces in BOS, change the curve to get it more "real".
This brings up another point - how far could a pilot actually deflect a combat aircraft joystick. There are accounts of pilots heaving on sticks to pull out of a dive, or having to use trim to do so. Does this mean they could not physically deflect the joystick at all? What about in level flight at 400km/h - could you really instantly push the stick all the way forward? Rather than 100% deflection could you only deflect the stick say 10% and more as you slowed? Yet we can yank on a stick and do all sorts of things real life pilots couldn't or wouldn't, yet complain when things happen "wrong".
Perhaps you were late to the game, but the real SE5a had elevator trim, something it took the ROF team almost 3 years to finally put in the game. So yes, curves were needed to compensate for the lack of trim in ROF. Had the trim been there, the elevator position would have been easy to control without having to hold the stick forward all the time. So once they did finally get it right, curves could be removed just to be able to fly the thing.For the SE5a this was modeled correctly as the real aircraft had 10 degrees forward stick needed to level the elevator. Maybe they shouldn't have got it right if people needed curves to be able to use it...
Keep researching. Maybe find out the difference between flying a Lagg and a 109 (what we are talking about in game), instead of a spitfire which noone is doubting was ever a non-forgiving or easy to fly plane.And another aside -
"Military Channel's program "Spitfire vs Me 109" with Bob Doe, B of B RAF vet and Ekkehard Bob LW JG54 B of B vet comparing the aircraft:"
"Ease of flying went to the Spit. The consensus was it took a veteran pilot to master the 109, but that the Spit was more forgiving to a new pilot."
Hood
"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself". - Archibald Macleish
While the Spitfire can turn to get you out of trouble, a 109 can just dive or climb his way to safety as it outperforms the Spit in both these aspects. The reason why people think that the Spitfire was such an "easy" plane to fly is mainly because turning and burning was a concept that was accepted and enforced in RAF units since the early days of World War One. New pilots already had a general idea of what turn fighting was as it was the preferred way to fight. The 1930's Luftwaffe, on the other hand, had cherry picked its fighter pilots since much earlier and their air warfare doctrine was adapted since the early days of the Spanish Civil War where they often had to face fighters that were very good turners too (specifically thinking of the russian I-16 "Rata"). The Luftwaffe doctrine encouraged fighting in the vertical plane, which is where the 109 excelled and which is why the RAF and VVS got given such a thrashing during the Battle of France and Operation Barbarossa. The idea of fighting in the vertical plane was considered "new", or at least somewhat unconventional at the time as monoplane fighters were a novelty that had yet to be combat-tested and adapted to their combat environment.
The training of a Luftwaffe pilot was very different in the training of a RAF pilot: they were not taught to fight the same way. The 109 was not considered "difficult" to fly if you received proper training. In fact, the 109 was pretty stable and had an aerodynamically sound design. The major cause for accidents was on takeoff and landing, where the undercarriages made it difficult to be stable on these half-assed french field airfields.
An interesting note: the Allied pilots fought mainly in the horizontal plane from '39 to late '41 because it is what their aircraft were designed for (as a result of design requirements). From '42 or so, fighters' design was adapted to fight in the vertical plane as well. The late Spitfire marks were not as good turners as the early marks, but had much better climbing capabilities. The cause of this shift in strategy is simply due to Fighter Command adapting their obsolete tactics to the Germans', which were more cost-efficient in terms of lives and materials. (whether or not they were successful at it is another story entirely)
A solution on their forums was a user suggesting to remove some of the range from your joystick....that's a problem:
http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/...-wobbling-109/
Adding a long extension to the joystick makes it more like the real thing precisely because it limits the throw. Put a full extension on a Warthog and you wouldn't be able to use 100% range of travel unless you had some weird setup that involved being able to castrate yourself if you pulled all the way back. With the limit in throw you can mimic more life like joystick control.
I'm thinking 109 here as some aircraft were different of course eg the Spit aileron control or P38 yoke etc. Limit the throw and you can get into 1:1 territory.
For the vast majority they can't afford a justify such a setup hence why programming baffles are added to help or to add virtual stick forces etc.
I used the Spitfire comparison as an example of the 109 being hard to master (tame) and was told read more. The conclusion of BoB pilots seem pretty conclusive to me.
I have no idea how VVS planes handled in reality though the videos of the test pilot produced by BOS were a little instructive. Maybe they were worse, maybe better but that might all be based on subjective opinions of the pilots themselves.
As for the 109 in all games it seems pretty steady to me and I experience none of the sensations that other people report, even when bunting which with rudder input allows a straight bunt rather than flip-floppiness.
Hood
The strange thing is, seen in the video I posted, the wobbly/floppy/rubberbandy behavior is really only seen with pitch/elevator input. Aileron input remains very stable when pilot input is abruptly ended and the stick is centered.
Limiting the throw of the axis just eliminates precision. Since virtually all USB joysticks are digital or analog, there are only so many points the hall effect / potentiometer devices are going to pick up across the range of motion. If you have 300 points of precision across the entire axis of your joystick, removing any amount of throw, also removes the number of pickup points for that throw.
While it may appear more realistic to fly that why, I can assure you by removing those precision points that are built in to the joystick to get as much precision across the entire range of an axis, you are also giving up more precise movements. So go ahead and do that as you like. I'd much rather use the precision that came with my joystick in the 1st place, and not take it away for some reason.
Again it appears you don't understand what 1:1 means. That means, as said above, if there are 300 points of precision in an axis, and the game has 300 points of movement in an axis (just for easy math sake), every single pickup point that is read through the hall effect / potentiometer of your joystick also relates to a single moving point in reference to the control surface you are controlling.I'm thinking 109 here as some aircraft were different of course eg the Spit aileron control or P38 yoke etc. Limit the throw and you can get into 1:1 territory.
There is no such thing as making a real life plane 1:1 to a video game as neither are tied in to each other. So if a game has 1:1 input/output on it's devices and control surfaces it's actually talking about input/output devices in the computer world (usb devices interacting with software) and not some made up mythical number of 4 inches of travel of my stick = 1:1 for this aircraft.
It sounds like you are the one using programming baffles to limit your joystick to make it work right. I and many others do not have any need to adjust curves as my joystick to the software it's attached to have always been 1:1 naturally.For the vast majority they can't afford a justify such a setup hence why programming baffles are added to help or to add virtual stick forces etc.
So you were researching BoB pilots (RAF pilots?) about a 109's flight characteristics? And this is for 109's in BoS? Just a guess, but that might be your 1st problem with the research. Here's some actual 109 pilots talking about the 109. You'll notice how many of these speak about how nice and easy the 109 was to fly. This was just a quick google search, if you need some references from real books from 109 pilots (not RAF pilots) about the ease of flying a 109, please let me know and I can help you with your research.I used the Spitfire comparison as an example of the 109 being hard to master (tame) and was told read more. The conclusion of BoB pilots seem pretty conclusive to me.
Me 109 G:
"It was amazing feeling to take off in Messerschmitt after the Fiat (G.50). It was gung ho and no hesitation! The performance and handling of the plane were excellent and all systems were in their correct place. Of all different planes I have flown the easiest to fly were the Pyry (advanced trainer) and the Messerschmitt."
- Esko Nuuttila, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
Aircraft was confidence inspiring, one felt like being the king of the skies when sitting in the cockpit. All controls were in logical order and in the reach of the pilot.
The plane responded to your piloting like a dream, from takeoff to landing. It is still the plane of my dreams.
- Kauko Risku, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-2/G-6:
The Messerschmitt was good to fly and beautiful - I wish I could fly it one more time…
- Aulis Rosenlöf, Finnish fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G-6:
One thing that was absolutely good about it, was the wild performance of the aircraft. Other good points were the visibility during the flight, the sitting position, the cockpit wasn't unnecessary roomy, the impression of controlled flight and sturdy construction: no vibrations or shakings, the electrically heated flightsuit and gloves.
- Torsti Tallgren, Finnish post war fighter pilot. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
Me 109 G:
Me109 was almost a dream come true for a pilot. Good controllability, enough speed, excelent rate of climb. The feel of the controls were normal except when flying over 600km/h - some strength was needed then.
When Me109 came to the squadron it was without a doubt the best tool in use. The La-7 and Yak-9 that were introduced into service in summer '44 were equal or in some areas somewhat better than Me109.
- Erkki O. Pakarinen, Finnish fighter pilot, Finnish Air Force trainer. Source: Hannu Valtonen, "Me 109 ja Saksan sotatalous" (Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the German war economy), ISBN 951-95688-7-5.
And that's part of the problem. If we are discussing the 109 vs Russian planes and their flight characteristics (you know the thing the OP was talking about in his complaints about how the 109 is floppy, rubber banding etc., compared to the Russian counterparts), it would probably be a good idea to know the problem he is talking about by knowing the planes in comparison to each other.I have no idea how VVS planes handled in reality though the videos of the test pilot produced by BOS were a little instructive. Maybe they were worse, maybe better but that might all be based on subjective opinions of the pilots themselves.
You must be playing a different BoS than all those that continue to complain about the 109 behavior vs the Russian counterparts. It's quite obvious, especially when guys are taking away range of motion in their axis with different curves etc., in order to alleviate the problem in the 1st place, that there is indeed a problem. It's been talked about numerous times on the forums and must be such an embarrassment for them when they are starting to ban people for even bringing it up. Lets hope they can get it sorted out.As for the 109 in all games it seems pretty steady to me and I experience none of the sensations that other people report, even when bunting which with rudder input allows a straight bunt rather than flip-floppiness.
"The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself". - Archibald Macleish
The only way to fully use a joystick with less angular movement would be to build some reduction gears into it. That way you would keep the full resolution with less overall movement.
I guess a neat way to do it would be with pulleys (idea for some cockpit makers)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks