The "Rudder issue" in the new Beta

[IvanK]

Just got to fly the new Beta (been away working since the patch came out away from PC). WRT the "BF109" rudder issue I think rudder behaviour has been changed across ALL types (certainly fighters). The change is both good and bad. The comments below are fairly generic.

Previously any even minor rudder input resulted in almost immediate secondary effects of yaw (roll) ocurring. This was unrealistic. The Secondary effect of yaw is generally a progressive thing requiring significant rudder application (then yaw) for it to start manifesting itself. Typically in most straight wing types a smooth application of perhaps 1/3 to half rudder is required before the roll becomes noticeable. In the current Beta patch this is what I am seeing ... about 1/3rd rudder pedal deflection before I see any secondary effect. However I am not seeing anywhere near enough yaw during the rudder application. This results in the aircraft seemingly not responding yaw wise to the first 1/3rd of rudder application. The first real motion you see as the pilot is the "secondary effect" i.e the roll then yaw starts to come in.

What I should be seeing with smooth progressive rudder application is the Yaw coming on, Then at about 1/3rd to 1/2 rudder pedal application a progressive roll developing. You need to establish the yaw rate to get the secondary effect happening. Of course individual pedal sense settings and speed will alter exactly when this all takes place on your system. Speed and power settings will also affect this.

So in summary imo the later point at which the roll component occurs is an improvement. The lack of significant yaw in the first 1/3rd to 1/2 rudder application could be tweeked a bit.

How to fix imo:
Get the Yaw rate going commensurate with rudder application.... like it used to be. Delay the secondary effect (roll) similar to what we have now .... i.e. keep the the secondary affect (roll) to a similar onset point as it now is, with the Roll rate being proportional to the Yaw rate. This will then provide a more a natural and realistic response

Having said that I think its better than what we had previously.

[camber]

I would agree but have a couple of points.

The rudder changes are extremely noticable when attempting to get enemy aircraft on sight in the turn. The main problem (as IvanK said) is that attempting to rudder the nose up and down in a steeply banked turn gives a large secondary roll response that is difficult to compensate with aileron. But another problem is that the rudder response is extremely undampened and a rudder input sufficient for any yaw will give large oscillations in both yaw and roll and you end up waggling your nose around the target.

EDIT: not that you should open fire in a side slip anyway, but there is a fair amount of oscillation present!

Setting axis sensitivity to 1.0 from 0.0 (reduces rudder response at low pedal input) does not help because the rudder is hardly doing anything at the low inputs anyway (just some "secondary" roll)


Previously any even minor rudder input resulted in almost immediate secondary effects of yaw (roll) ocurring. This was unrealistic. The Secondary effect of yaw is generally a progressive thing requiring significant rudder application (then yaw) for it to start manifesting itself. Typically in most straight wing types a smooth application of perhaps 1/3 to half rudder is required before the roll becomes noticeable. In the current Beta patch this is what I am seeing ... about 1/3rd rudder pedal deflection before I see any secondary effect. However I am not seeing anywhere near enough yaw during the rudder application. This results in the aircraft seemingly not responding yaw wise to the first 1/3rd of rudder application. The first real motion you see as the pilot is the "secondary effect" i.e the roll then yaw starts to come in.


You can really see this on three channel RC planes (which have large amounts of dihedral and no ailerons). To bank you kick the tail sideways with rudder which is clearly visible, then the aircraft tips toward the yaw.

camber

[David198502]

nice one IvanK!
my impression as well in regards of the rudder, but you are certainly more of an expert!
are you in direct touch with the devs?i hope they listen to you...

btw, what do you think of the new elevator and aileron behaviour?
im a 109pilot only, so i dont know about the other planes, except the hurri where a bugreport already exists, but now the 109 seems way harder to control precisely, especially when trying to correct/adjust the aim...
more or less realistic in comparison to the official version?

[SlipBall]

For some reason, it is common for some files to get screwed up when installing a patch. Anyone having these problem's should first try an re-install, of both the game and Steam. :)

[41Sqn_Stormcrow]

I personally agree with the principle points exposed by Ivan, I have however some doubt about the 1/3 - 1/2 range as generic values. My guess is that between individual planes and between different speeds this may vary a bit more.

[IvanK]

The 1/3 - 1/2 range is just a very generic "pluck" on my part. Stormcrow you are 100% correct that it will vary from type to type and with power and speed as well. Given its actually the yaw itself and yaw rate versus all the other opposing couples that cause this secondary effect of yaw and how apparent it is.

As to the BF109 elevator. Initially it did feel a little sensitive post patch. I adjusted the sensitivity settings externally in my joystick software and so far so good.

WRT to sensitivity settings I set all the sliders in game to 0. I then adjust values in Joystick software ... CH Manager in my case. I found that this gives better results.

[Crumpp]

What about the stall characteristics of the Beta Bf-109? Would you be kind enough to post some data on entry speeds and behaviors?

[David198502]

The 1/3 - 1/2 range is just a very generic "pluck" on my part. Stormcrow you are 100% correct that it will vary from type to type and with power and speed as well. Given its actually the yaw itself and yaw rate versus all the other opposing couples that cause this secondary effect of yaw and how apparent it is.

As to the BF109 elevator. Initially it did feel a little sensitive post patch. I adjusted the sensitivity settings externally in my joystick software and so far so good.

WRT to sensitivity settings I set all the sliders in game to 0. I then adjust values in Joystick software ... CH Manager in my case. I found that this gives better results.


well ok, but adjusting the sensitivity settings is kind of manipulating the FM in my view...isnt it??
i would think, that if you dont have any sensitivity applied, then its direct input, and therefore the representation of what the devs consider as the realistic FM...(correct me if im wrong!)

and now with the current patch, its really hard to aim and make precise adjustments with sensitivity set to 0.if you make a small movement on the stick, the plane hardly reacts at all, and if you move the stick a tad further, then the plane will react with a big "jump",affecting both the elevators and ailerons.

btw IvanK, what sensitivity settings do you use in CH manager?what do you consider as a realistic behaviour?

[IvanK]

What about the stall characteristics of the Beta Bf-109? Would you be kind enough to post some data on entry speeds and behaviors?

What does that have to do with this thread ??? We are trying to discuss the Rudder and secondary effect of yaw. If you want to discuss BF109 Stall characteristics how about testing yourself and starting a new thread to discuss that ?

[IvanK]

[/B]


well ok, but adjusting the sensitivity settings is kind of manipulating the FM in my view...isnt it??
i would think, that if you dont have any sensitivity applied, then its direct input, and therefore the representation of what the devs consider as the realistic FM...(correct me if im wrong!)

and now with the current patch, its really hard to aim and make precise adjustments with sensitivity set to 0.if you make a small movement on the stick, the plane hardly reacts at all, and if you move the stick a tad further, then the plane will react with a big "jump",affecting both the elevators and ailerons.

btw IvanK, what sensitivity settings do you use in CH manager?what do you consider as a realistic behaviour?

I understand your point about adjusting sensitivity v FM etc but on on the other hand we are all using different input devices with different inherent characteristics as well, also we are primarily discussing the rudder yaw issue :) .... but to answer your question:


As to my setup I run CH stick with Ivankuturkokoffrubberband mod as well. This allows you to increase the stick ressistance which for me is too low on CH sticks. I am running 3 rubber bands in Pitch and 2 rubber bands in roll. Anyway in Pitch I have CH dead zone set to 3, Sensitivity set to 100, and Gain set 2 clicks (top button) from linear.

As to being realistic ... well its just a gut feeling of what seems to work for me in the Sim nothing else. As to what the Devs have done being realistic well I am not so sure. The Hurricane is a case in point it exhibits a specific "notch" in pitch close to the neutral zone .... that for instance I wouldn't consider realistic.

In the Rudder axis I have zero sensitivity adjustment at the moment. Using Saitek pedals all you can adjust in Saitek software is Dead zone.

[DC338]

Also David Note that different sticks have different throws. i.e different lengths, especially when compared to the actual aircraft. These adjustments help to adjust for the fact that you don't have as long a control column as you do in the real aircraft.

Back to the rudder talk.

[Crumpp]

What does that have to do with this thread ???

Christ....

For one thing, you use the rudder to walk the wing down in a stall in a real aircraft. For example, my aircraft will drop ~30 degrees of left wing the moment it stalls. That can be controlled and the wing held almost level with proper use of the rudder.

You think the roll coupling might be important??? :rolleyes:

Secondly, the stall being co-ordinated by the rudder or not co-ordinated has an effect on the characteristics.

Beta Bf-109

I don't have beta....

You know what, to hell with you. You are on my ignore list.

[IvanK]

Christ....

For one thing, you use the rudder to walk the wing down in a stall in a real aircraft. For example, my aircraft will drop ~30 degrees of left wing the moment it stalls. That can be controlled and the wing held almost level with proper use of the rudder.

You think the roll coupling might be important??? :rolleyes:

Secondly, the stall being co-ordinated by the rudder or not co-ordinated has an effect on the characteristics.



I don't have beta....

You know what, to hell with you. You are on my ignore list.

Good O that will save every body a lot of grief. Might be a good idea if you are going to enter threads about the beta to actually have it installed.

Now following on... you dont " ..... use the rudder to walk the wing down in a stall in a real aircraft" .... At the stall Rudder is used to prevent further yaw ! that I think you will find is what most pilots are actually taught. Since you regularly quote FAA stuff have a read of Page 4-5 and 4-6 of the current FAA Airplane Flying Handbook and their description of rudder use in the stall... its in the paragraph headed "Use of Ailerons/Rudder in Stall recovery".

Roll coupling ... yes I do think its important At least one aeroplane I have flown had specific limitations to keep the pilot out of it ... less they destroy it or loose total control.