I get the Spring Mapping force curve to get higher force at lower speed, but why did you do the +200
I get the Spring Mapping force curve to get higher force at lower speed, but why did you do the +200 / -200 on your calibrated Y axis range?
CIs there a way in the VPForce software to set a minimum output force like has been suggested that Heatblur implement?
Nits a way of decreasing the saturation of the axis, similar to what you can do in DCS axis tuning, but without jacking up the FFB. It basically makes the physical throw of your axis only move the virtual axis %80 or so, decreasing the sensitivity overall. If you find you regularly need that last %20 of elevator throw, it may not be useful.
COh gotcha, that makes sense
CI guess setting the gain map like this would get me something similar to ramp up the minimum force earlier?
GIt shows compressed during visualization only (when clicking the image), use saving/downloading then open with another program, the image gets its real resolution and you can see all the settings 
RI understand why they wouldn't want to change it, or the forces between simulated and in the stick don't proportionally match
RAnd then that goes into the territory of giving false interpretations of aircraft handling. Similar to ppl with normal spring gimbals cranking axis curvature up
Banyone experiencing runaway left aileron trim?
HTrue, however they do allow the alteration of the gain, which when increased results in a disproportionate increase at the high end compared to the low. Would be much better if it was a linear increase and not an exponential one in my opinion
WFrom physics perspective the force (=dynamic pressure) increases with the square of the speed, so it's correct that it's non linear.
edit: Although the F-4 implements an artificial feel system and is not directly coupled with the control surfaces, that may not be the case (haven't read the docs about the F-4 control stuff yet)
edit: Although the F-4 implements an artificial feel system and is not directly coupled with the control surfaces, that may not be the case (haven't read the docs about the F-4 control stuff yet)
V:package: 
RHINO #0556 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0556 Has Shipped!V:package: 
RHINO #0557 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0557 Has Shipped!
BHas anybody here ever had the trim button being stuck? I've had it a few times now and can't quite figure out what is causing it. I'm using the TM F-18 grip and sometimes the trim seems to go to full deflection, usually just the roll trim but today I also had the same happen to the pitch trim. I checked my keybinds and there are no double bindings. Dcs control inputs isn't showing that the button is depressed so I'm not sure what's going on. Could it be a button issue? An issue with the Rhino maybe?
WWhich aircraft?
BAv8b
BBut I had some roll trim issues in the F5 as well
WThe button glitches would appear as a erratic flickering if it were the case. But as I've noticed an increase in trim related issues recently, maybe a DCS update introduced some kind of bug 
BInteresting. What that guy described is exactly what I had. I managed to fix it by pressing the trim button in all the directions a lot and the runaway trim disappeared.
G100% correct. And actually the bellows system make it like ^2 of airspeed. So it's almost dead while stationary - just the friction forces are keeping it from falling
Gthis is a plot of the pitch forces during take off for the F-4B (the system is almost the same with some changes to the viscous damper and some additional springs - both removed in tge later models)
Gthis is for 2 units nose down
Gcheck how little force change is required between neutral and full aft < 120 knots
Gand then for high performance turns, sufrace level, 8.5 G, you can have gradients as 6-8 lbf / G -> so forces around 50 lbf
GAnd when you realise, that you don't need full deflection for that 50 lbf, you'll see that the gradients change by a factor of 25-100 from stationary to dogfighting
GAnd then you realise that for the aileron it's something like 14 lbf (off the top of my head) for full deflection, flat - so doesn't depend on speed.
GAnd finally, the default way a DCS module can communicate with any FFB stick is by providing the neutral position and force gradient multiplier. Through my tests, I found it limiting as nice feel required high gradients, but that caused signal clipping. However, sky is the limit, and we will see what we can cook to make more data available to the Rhino and make it more accurate.
NJust wanted to say thanks for jumping in here. Its always nice to hear directly from module developers and good things usually come from open conversations. I don't think anyone wants HB to sacrifice realism for the sake of one specific FFB device, but in my experience so far, it seems the realistic force curves don't translate well into the force range that the average FFB device can produce. There aren't a lot of FFB devices out there, and maybe I should dust off my sidewinder to see if the behavior feels different, but I imagine the general feeling would be the same across pretty much any FFB device.
Again, thanks for chiming in!
Again, thanks for chiming in!
AI think it's just amazing how much effort blur put into ffb considering how niche it is
GAbsolutely they don't, and that's why I bumped the roll forces up by some factor long ago (long ago - that's why I don't remember the precise value). OTOH, the toolset that we have is a bit limited. But finally, I think it also requires a shift in expectaions and understanding of how the devices work. For example, with driving wheels, it's much easier, because most of use drive cars. I know that sport cars have different feeling and you can't compare sport cars with everyday cars directly, but at least we (racing sim users with no real life racing experience) have some sort of experience to which we can refer. With flying, we come from being conditioned by decades of using spring-centred sticks, and it's sometimes very distracting and if feels awkward when a stick is almost numb - I mean no reaction. For example, we like a nice centre detent because it makes us feel reassured that we have no deflection etc, while in real life 'no deflection' is a bit more abstract, because everything is much less precise - for example the aircraft is a bit crooked and requires some constant aileron input.
Ahow about the other stuff in the F-4 control options, I think there's at least an option for limiting maximum force the pilot can use or something like that
GAnd I'm sharing all these thoughts because on so many occasions I had to re-evaluate my previous understanding when working on the F-4E, that I'm no longer the same person 
Ait's a rather complicated question considering how easy it is to fling a joystick around compared to real controls and make the planes do some really funky stuff
B
GSometimes I regret I even thought about trying to understand the controls system and making them 'realistic'. 
GOh yes, that's why it's there, but that's for the non-FFB users They don't know how to use the force
They don't know how to use the forceAwhat setting should FFB users have?
Aof course I don't think my Rhino setup can give me 30kg of pull so is there still room for modeling pilot limits?
Nin general, I love it... my one suggestion (for all of the $0.02 its worth) would be to add some (or some extra) dampening to the bobweight effect around 1G.. maybe its realistic as is but it seems... bouncy? 
GBut also that's true - my initial assumption was that in real life no one would break so many wings so easily because it would require some effort measured in pounds of force (or Newtons for more sane unit system users)
Ain addition to the stick being rather heavy, real pilots have other subtle cues tellint them that what they're trying to do might not be perfectly reasonable
Alike losing consciousness and such
Nhmm... FFB blood pressure cuff around the neck might be a good way to simulate it 
GOh it is bouncy and my understanding is that it was bouncy. That's one of the aspects I wanted to address in that longer article about the control systems. Some of the flight characteristics of the aircraft - I mean pitch stability related - isn't pure aerodynamics or even STAB AUG - it comes from the control system + pilot 'interference'. So IMO you can't achieve proper aircraft stability in simulation without addressing how the controls impact that. And the reports show that it shouldn't be neglected.
AI think a cuff around the balls might be very effective
Aanyway for me the F-4 force feedback was fascinating from the start, I loved how I felt the plane talk to me all the time, I just had absolutely no idea of what it was like in reality
GAlso that's why I think the real life pilots have less problems and less complaints because they are more fluent at controlling the aircraft and then those inertia/G effects on the controls are less annoying. While we, the happy flight sim users doing RedBull-like-air-races-through-the-hangars-and-landing-on-a-dam, we like to yank the controls left right up and down.
Aand for us the ffb stick is usually the only thing giving any kind of physical feedback at all, whereas real pilots are absolutely flooded with all kinds of sensations while maneuvering
Abtw what do the force gain controls in the special menu actually do?
Ado they increase the forces (up to what point) or do they just make the system stronger at the lower end and max out earlier?