What TelemFFB settings are needed to enable stiffening of stick forces in roll axis as airspeed incr
What TelemFFB settings are needed to enable stiffening of stick forces in roll axis as airspeed increases?
NTelemFFB doesn't play a role in the spring stiffness for IL2 (or DCS) since it has native control of the spring effect
1I dont understand your answer. When using telemffb il2 native ffb should be disabled. That means telemffb provides all effects.
1So is telemffb capable of providing stick forces based on airspeed for il2 and dcs?
Nwhere did you get this information?
1If you are referring to disabling native il2 ffb then i got it from rhino manual
Nno, it talks about disabling "Shake" only.
1What is "shake"?
NHaptic/Periodic effects. For IL2 native support that is limited to Buffeting, Runway Rumble and Weapons effects
NTo answer your original question. No, TelemFFB does not implement dynamic speed based spring for DCS/IL2 since the sims themselves do it.
1Thanks for answering, how do i disable shake?
NRight in the input settings where you would enable/disable FFB. There are two sliders. One for shaking, that controls the haptic feedback I previously mentioned. One for "feedback power" that is the master gain control for the dynamic spring based effects.
The only reason it is recommended to set the shaking value to 0 is that (in my opinion) the TelemFFB effects for Buffeting, Runway Rumble and Weapons Effects are just better than the built-in ones. This is what the Duplicate Shake Effects section in the manual is talking about.
If you enable the "IL2 Shake Master" setting in TelemFFB, you should disable the shake effects in IL2 so they are not both trying to play at the same time.
The only reason it is recommended to set the shaking value to 0 is that (in my opinion) the TelemFFB effects for Buffeting, Runway Rumble and Weapons Effects are just better than the built-in ones. This is what the Duplicate Shake Effects section in the manual is talking about.
If you enable the "IL2 Shake Master" setting in TelemFFB, you should disable the shake effects in IL2 so they are not both trying to play at the same time.
1Many thanks now i understand!
一Is that on every aircraft or only on certain aircraft? Some WW2 aircraft have bobweight as a feeling device which stiffens the stick according to G. P-51 is one of them, not sure which model tho
1No its just that i didnt understand how to set it up.
一Speaking of the new G-Force effect...
I’m still a bit confused about certain aspects. From what I understand, the formula is:
(Current G) / (Max G) * (Current Stick Deflection) / (Max Stick Deflection)
I believe the first part (related to G) is intended to increase the stick force according to G-load, and the second part (deflection) is designed to make the stick harder to pull as you pull it further.
However, I’m uncertain whether this effect replicates what a bobweight would typically do.
For instance, let's assume the aircraft has a max G of 8, and that stick (or control surface) deflection is linearly proportional to the change in G/ability to generate G (i.e., the deflection of the elevator/stabilator results in a proportional G-load).
With the settings: max intensity is F, start G is 1, max G is 8, and the Y-axis max point is 100%:
At a certain airspeed, if the maximum G available is 4 and this requires full stick deflection. For a max-g pulling in such a condition, the current G-effect implementation should work, as it would yield something like:
((4/8) * 100%) * F = 1/2 F.
But at the same airspeed, if pulling 2G requires half of the stick travel, the result would be:
((2/8) * 50%) * F = 1/8 F.
Since the stick deflection is proportional to the change in G, shouldn’t it be:
((max G available at current airspeed) * 50%) * F = ((4/8) * 50%) * F = 1/4 F?
I understand that in reality, stick/surface deflection may not be perfectly/linearly proportional to G-load, but my point is that since stick deflection is already related to the current G, using the "current G proportion" (current G divided by max G) might make the force smaller than it should be, as we saw in the example above. Wouldn't this be the case?
I’m still a bit confused about certain aspects. From what I understand, the formula is:
(Current G) / (Max G) * (Current Stick Deflection) / (Max Stick Deflection)
I believe the first part (related to G) is intended to increase the stick force according to G-load, and the second part (deflection) is designed to make the stick harder to pull as you pull it further.
However, I’m uncertain whether this effect replicates what a bobweight would typically do.
For instance, let's assume the aircraft has a max G of 8, and that stick (or control surface) deflection is linearly proportional to the change in G/ability to generate G (i.e., the deflection of the elevator/stabilator results in a proportional G-load).
With the settings: max intensity is F, start G is 1, max G is 8, and the Y-axis max point is 100%:
At a certain airspeed, if the maximum G available is 4 and this requires full stick deflection. For a max-g pulling in such a condition, the current G-effect implementation should work, as it would yield something like:
((4/8) * 100%) * F = 1/2 F.
But at the same airspeed, if pulling 2G requires half of the stick travel, the result would be:
((2/8) * 50%) * F = 1/8 F.
Since the stick deflection is proportional to the change in G, shouldn’t it be:
((max G available at current airspeed) * 50%) * F = ((4/8) * 50%) * F = 1/4 F?
I understand that in reality, stick/surface deflection may not be perfectly/linearly proportional to G-load, but my point is that since stick deflection is already related to the current G, using the "current G proportion" (current G divided by max G) might make the force smaller than it should be, as we saw in the example above. Wouldn't this be the case?
一——————————
Additionally, is the G-induced force added to the static/dynamic spring force, or does it override it so that the total stick force becomes the force from G-effect only?
——————————
Apologies if this sounds unclear—I'm trying to discuss a tricky math-related topic in a language that isn’t my native one lol . I might be misunderstanding the current implementation or missing something important. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
OK If we can forget all this weird relations of variables and make it simpler: what if we mimic what a real bobweight based feel system does? —— Total force = spring force (spring&cam etc) + dynamic force (G-induced force on bobweight). Since we can get the current G from telemetry, what about using the current G value, multiplied by an intensity setting (a percentage of max torque or constant force. The result value simulates the bobweight under 1G), and adding it on top of the spring force, damper and inertia effect etc?
Of course, in some aircraft, the "static" spring force might be replaced by a dynamic spring force (aerodynamic force or by bellows).
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thx!
Additionally, is the G-induced force added to the static/dynamic spring force, or does it override it so that the total stick force becomes the force from G-effect only?
——————————
Apologies if this sounds unclear—I'm trying to discuss a tricky math-related topic in a language that isn’t my native one lol . I might be misunderstanding the current implementation or missing something important. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
OK If we can forget all this weird relations of variables and make it simpler: what if we mimic what a real bobweight based feel system does? —— Total force = spring force (spring&cam etc) + dynamic force (G-induced force on bobweight). Since we can get the current G from telemetry, what about using the current G value, multiplied by an intensity setting (a percentage of max torque or constant force. The result value simulates the bobweight under 1G), and adding it on top of the spring force, damper and inertia effect etc?
Of course, in some aircraft, the "static" spring force might be replaced by a dynamic spring force (aerodynamic force or by bellows).
I’d love to hear your thoughts. Thx!
HI‘m not @Number481 but I was his „beta-tester“ for the new effect.
You‘re overthinking it a little bit. The aim wasn’t to simulate a bob-weight (even though, to a certain extend it does), but to get rid of some adverse effects of the old G-effect. The old one had some latency due to its dependence on outside telemetry by DCS. This and the exponential curve together led to unwanted oscillation when pulling G fast. The new Effect is more responsive since it can take the stick position into account much quicker. The effect itself is linear now, (per default) but due to the new factor, it is progressive again. The differences between the new and old effect are subtle (dpending on your exact settings).
However, my personal opinion, when you compare the new effect to the native bob-weight simulation in the Phantom, it comes very close.
You‘re overthinking it a little bit. The aim wasn’t to simulate a bob-weight (even though, to a certain extend it does), but to get rid of some adverse effects of the old G-effect. The old one had some latency due to its dependence on outside telemetry by DCS. This and the exponential curve together led to unwanted oscillation when pulling G fast. The new Effect is more responsive since it can take the stick position into account much quicker. The effect itself is linear now, (per default) but due to the new factor, it is progressive again. The differences between the new and old effect are subtle (dpending on your exact settings).
However, my personal opinion, when you compare the new effect to the native bob-weight simulation in the Phantom, it comes very close.
一ok this makes a lot more sense. thx.
(Still, wish we could have a real bobweight simulation someday, especially for DIY base with high forces, and just in case the module doesn't support it natively. For example, I've heard the A-10C doesn't have it simulated natively tho I haven't had the chance to try it. Not sure for F-5, P-51 either
(Still, wish we could have a real bobweight simulation someday, especially for DIY base with high forces, and just in case the module doesn't support it natively. For example, I've heard the A-10C doesn't have it simulated natively tho I haven't had the chance to try it. Not sure for F-5, P-51 either
WThe previous G effect was very close to a real bob weight simulation, but the the latency of the G telemetry caused unwanted oscillation felt in the force output
一ah..that's quite unfortunate!
HMy recommendation for settings if you want to have „more“ force. Put the max G close to what the airframe can actualy achieve (but a little above that). Put the max force to 100% (obviously) and reduce the slider for the stick position to 50%. (applies force faster/earlier)
一thx for explaining, everyone
Has a last step you can still adjust the curve I think.
HI think with all the detailed settings, you can tune the effect perfectly to any desired feeling - including the F-4 like bob-weight.
HAnd of course you can still use the old effect instead if you want to.
HDON‘T do that for the F-16 though. You will heat saturate the stick in no time…..
(ask me how I know
(ask me how I know一again appreciate the advice
do you know by any chance whether the G-effect is added on top of the spring force or it override it?
do you know by any chance whether the G-effect is added on top of the spring force or it override it?一haha no, I would only use this effect on something that has bobweight IRL like A-10
HThe G-effect is a constant force effect.
Hiiirc
V:package: 
RHINO #0699 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0699 Has Shipped!V:package: 
RHINO #0700 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0700 Has Shipped!NThe guys answered your other questions perfectly so I'll just address this easy one 
Per the documentation, the new G effect, when enabled, will override the legacy one. It was done this way because 1.) they wouldn't play well together, nor would the enhance or complement each other and 2.) it allows for easy a/b testing by simply enabling/disabling the new effect.
I've got some ideas to potentially improve the legacy effect using some upcoming new firmware features that will allow us to dynamically modify the spring effect that DCS controls (rather than using a separate constant force effect), but there is still the issue of telemetry latency to consider, which walmis pointed out.
Per the documentation, the new G effect, when enabled, will override the legacy one. It was done this way because 1.) they wouldn't play well together, nor would the enhance or complement each other and 2.) it allows for easy a/b testing by simply enabling/disabling the new effect.I've got some ideas to potentially improve the legacy effect using some upcoming new firmware features that will allow us to dynamically modify the spring effect that DCS controls (rather than using a separate constant force effect), but there is still the issue of telemetry latency to consider, which walmis pointed out.
SSo if the "dynamic speed based" aileron stiffness effect is absent or weak for the specific sim/module then the user is simply out of luck?
V:package: RHINO #0701 Has Shipped!
RHINO #0701 Has Shipped!NI wouldn't say out of luck, rather, at the mercy of the sim developer. Maybe that's the same thing.
Theres some upcoming firmware features for the Rino that may help us correct more poor implementations, but no promises there either.
Theres some upcoming firmware features for the Rino that may help us correct more poor implementations, but no promises there either.
Phonestly, can anyone here tell me if it's really worth doing an FFB modification to the pedals to play DCS?
BI don't know but I would say it's more of a helicopter thing...to use force trim...been flying fixed wing IRL for 57 years...rudder pedals have always been sensitive springy things used at low speed and on the ground...not much feedback...can't speak for their feel in a warbird though. That being said...they'd probably feel really smooth with infinite adjustability.
KI love my RhinoMFG peddels. Propeller aircraft and helicopter have the most benefit. For jets it is mostly nice to have. But the shaking before the stall is also cool in the jets.
HThat is a very personal matter. The objective advantages are:
- you can adjust spring, inertia, friction and damping endlessly to your liking. Even if you don't use a ffb game
- you can feel FFB-effects like gun fire or stalls in you feet as well as in your hands.
- ypu can have dynamic airstream forces on the rudder if the sim supports it
- you can realisticly emulate helicopter behavior and trim
- you don't get stiction as you woud with a spring and damper system
- you can adjust spring, inertia, friction and damping endlessly to your liking. Even if you don't use a ffb game
- you can feel FFB-effects like gun fire or stalls in you feet as well as in your hands.
- ypu can have dynamic airstream forces on the rudder if the sim supports it
- you can realisticly emulate helicopter behavior and trim
- you don't get stiction as you woud with a spring and damper system
HFFB stick and pedals together have almost the same effect as a buttkicker in that you feel effects "through the whole airframe"
H- you can enable and disable spring without crawling under the desk....
PI was going to get the WW but the temptation of a FFB conversion for the pedals is huge
HIf you try it and don't like it, you can use the motor and pcb to build a collective.... 
MJust diy ones, and biggest benefit - switching between modes: heli/jet/prop and adjustability of spring/damper/friction
MWhat's benefit of dedicated collective if I have throttle? And especially collective with ffb
HSame as above. It's a matter of personal taste and preference. A collective would benefit from the non-stiction nature of a BLDC
HThere are no dogmatic reasons to get FFB at all. Just joy.
MBut ffb stick realy improves quality of life in sim 
M
