Quote:
Originally Posted by IceFire
Sorry for wading in 
Most people don't seem to be able to articulate what they are seeing. So I'll give it a try.
It took me a while to notice but eventually I did. Now that I've noticed... I can tell that the Spitfire is definitely a slightly more challenging ride than before. Before it felt a bit like it was on rails in some cases. Now it does have some "extra character to it". I can't say if it's right, wrong or different. So far the best way for me to test to see the difference is to snap roll 90 degrees left and right and then return to level flight.
It seems the aileron movements causes the extra yaw. I'm fairly certain this is called adverse yaw. It is slightly more severe than on many other types (by my approximation) although I can also list several types that have it more extreme than the Spitfire as well.
...
...
EDIT: Those of you having more difficulties with this may want to adjust their joystick curves to slightly reduce the sensitivity. Particularly on the rudder. That should help... along with a proper rudder coordination technique to work with excess yaw. Particularly during gunnery. |
Well, at least you did notice something. I was beginning to feel like someone explaining a difference between single malt and blended whiskies at a Shariah summit. The Spit is slightly more challenging only if you ride it around; if you throw it around violently, especially at low speeds, it is much more challenging than before. You describe this earlier behavior nicely as a 'ride on the rails'. All the planes in the game still keep using similar rails, or in other words, seem to behave as if either the vertical tail surfaces, or their distance from the CG are larger. Together with the fast dissipation of the oscillation energy (damping factor), this smothers the yaw oscillations caused by any disturbance very fast.
You could look at the adverse yaw as another not-commanded disturbance of direction of the plane's axis, away from the line of flight. The vertical tail ll react to the adverse yaw with a correcting moment in the opposite direction at once, but the value of that moment depends on the 'area' and 'moment arm length/distance to CG' which are bound to have some kind of virtual representation in the planes game FM.
This 4.10 change feels similar to 4.09 spit which lost half the vertical tail area (it means the rudder, that makes this a difficult analogy)
We didn't mention here the most important stabillity axis- the pitch-axis.
Reducing the sensitivity of the controls must end somewhere, or you wont reach the full throw of the rudder in the extreme position. From this somewhere, stick output is bound to rise ever steeper, making holding the plane on the stall limit a very shaky matter; half a millimeter more and you overdrawn it.
Furthermore, exponential control output is not a simulated feature, because it exists on no plane. It is only a way of limiting the plane's twitching in level flight because of the potentiometer 'noise'.
So you do not need this very counterproductive 'pott-stick/exponential output' duo, if you get a Hall-sensor (or any other contactless) noise-less stick. It doesnt have to be expensive like Saitek X series; Thrustmaster T16000 m is quite moderately priced.
Once you get rid of the potts and their completely unnatural input curves, you ll see at once how much you suffered actually
, and never want to go back. As for the trimming-after making the output table linear (10,20,30..100) I did not feel a special need to trim any more, cause the plane could be held rather steady in a cruise, with a small stick inclination and force. Only exception I can think of right now was the Ki43, which needs a strong downward trim at lowish speeds already, and this 4.10 Spit, which behaves similar. If rather energy-conscious, you can continue using trim, of course.
I am repeating this, becasue this info still seems to be largely unknown. Making the stick output curve even more non-linear is the last thing one should do.
I am not sure if the rudder coordination ll help you so much while shooting from a less stable plane. What would help is slow and gradual applying of the controls. For that, the oponent has to be cooperative enough to fly steadily and not too fast, of course.