For me personally, it not solely about having linear controls, it about recreating accurately the flight experience the simulator and FDE designers created. Preset, profile specific curves could be a part of that.

11 minutes ago, Nyxx said:

Well that's is exactly what happened, MSFS saw my TH HOTAS and added a 50% curve to pitch and roll out the box, I fine turned it by adding another 10%,

If MSFS had programed that 50% in without showing it, so it looked like a linear line and then I added another 10% that would be all fine and danny with you?

Well David I have the same and it works pretty well 🙂

8 minutes ago, norman_99 said:

That's interesting, I didn't know curves were part of the supplied profile for supported joysticks. That might be part of the problem why there is so much breadth of opinion on whether aircraft handle 'well' out of the box. People probably have a preset curve without even knowing.

My controls weren't supported so I have to do everything manually.

Yes that could well be a problem. I opened up my controls to see, as I know i would have to add curves and was surprised to see they were already set up/there. Very little to do apart from fine tune to my own taste. 

I would presume any none recognised controls would have a flat linear line and hence why....to sensitive cries. 

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Nyxx

I had to adjust everything manually for my VKB Gladiator. Took some time but now it flies really well (minus some of the FM issues people have rightly mentioned). 

Just now, Slides said:

I had to adjust everything manually for my VKB Gladiator. Took some time but now it flies really well (minus some of the FM issues people have rightly mentioned). 

I agree

Do we know if sensitivity settings are saved in custom profiles? This would help adapting to individual planes.

Then next wish would be to also associate specific profiles to specific planes (a-la FSUIPC)

44 minutes ago, Marco Manieri said:

Do we know if sensitivity settings are saved in custom profiles? This would help adapting to individual planes.

Then next wish would be to also associate specific profiles to specific planes (a-la FSUIPC)

You can do all that.

In Controles "Duplicate" a default profile for your device and it will ask you to rename it, let's say 152, Then everything is saved to that profile. Want to fly a 172 again "Duplicate" and rename the default profile name it 172.

Now when you fly the 152 or 172 you just change the profiles within controls.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Nyxx

Just now, Nyxx said:

You can do all that.

In Controles "Duplicate" a default profile for our device and it will ask you to rename it, let's say 152, Then everything is saved to that profile. Want to fly a 172 again "Duplicate" and rename the default profile name it 172.

Now when you fly the 152 or 172 you just change the profiles within controls.

Yep. I got it. My point is that it would be great to store the profiles to be used for a given airplane. So that you do it once and not each time you change plane...

DCS does it well. It forces you to have separate profiles for each aircraft. Civilian flight sims are lacking in this area.

There's today a new interesting post on directly editing the axis settings on the CFG ( MODERN FM 😞

 

2 hours ago, Nyxx said:

we need curves because we don't have force feedback and we need more a flatter curve around dead zones on axis and pitch. Also rudders work better also with a nice curve,

And that's exactly the point of this whole thread ... that we need curves to correct what could have been correct all by itself out of the box.

In a fly by wire plane there's a computer and servo's between the stick and the control surfaces ... that's a different story. But you're not telling me that in a Cessna 172 there's an exponential (or other) curve built into the rudder pedals, or in the elevator? (If there is ... then it should be simulated in the sim).

Of course it's nice you can create a curve in the sim if by doing that it makes it feel nicer ... but in essence the sim should simulate the real thing by default and such curve (that makes it deviate from reality) should not be a need..

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by RudyB24

3 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

that we need curves to correct what could have been correct all by itself out of the box.

You can feel g forces and aerodynamic forces out of the box?

32 minutes ago, Slides said:

You can feel g forces and aerodynamic forces out of the box?

No of course not Slides.

But would you not agree that moving the yoke back and forth should move the elevator surface up and down ... in the same manner and rate in the sim as in real? Which I assume in a Cessna to be linear? Then it is up to the built in software algorithms of the sim how the plane reacts on that deflection ... and that is the hard part, that's where people like Rob know how to design and tune these algorithms.

Now what if a desktop yoke or joystick has only half the travel of the real one? Well ... for starters that's something only real life pilots will feel, the yoke will be more sensitive (same deflection with lass yoke travel) than they're used to. Then a curve correction can help to give the same physical feel, at least partly, around zero.

But this leads to some choices for the sim designers. Either you keep it linear, which means that the max deflection now also is halved, or you make it exponential and still can have full deflection, be it with a far from realistic curve. It would for starters be nice if MSF gives us the choice how we want the profile to look. TrackIR or Opentrack have very flexible and easy to use multipoint curve editors.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by RudyB24

22 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

And that's exactly the point of this whole thread ... that we need curves to correct what could have been correct all by itself out of the box.

In a fly by wire plane there's a computer and servo's between the stick and the control surfaces ... that's a different story. But you're not telling me that in a Cessna 172 there's an exponential (or other) curve built into the rudder pedals, or in the elevator? (If there is ... then it should be simulated in the sim).

Of course it's nice you can create a curve in the sim if by doing that it makes it feel nicer ... but in essence the sim should simulate the real thing by default and such curve (that makes it deviate from reality) should not be a need..

My Controllers came with a curve added out the box, let say for 1min I ever looked at the controllers. All was good because MSFS and the 152/172 I fly within it works and feel really good with how it came out the box.

So really I have no need to change anything. So your point is? 

7 minutes ago, RudyB24 said:

No of course not Slides.

But would you not agree that moving the yoke back and forth should move the elevator surface up and down ... in the same manner and rate in the sim the same as in real? Which I assume in a Cessna to be linear? Then it is up to the built in software algorithms of the sim how the plane reacts on that deflection ... and that is the hard part, that's where people like Rob know how to design and tune these algorithms.

Now what if a desktop yoke or joystick has only half the travel of the real one? That's something only real life pilots will feel. Then a curve correction can help to give the same physical feel.

What and you think my control surfaces don't look right from and out side view? Just because there is a curve? Sorry they not only look fine they are fine.

If you totally set against any curves then great, enjoy it how you like. If an addon aircraft comes out that just have a liniara line for all axis etc great. Personally I would still add a curve. Go fly DCS, fly the F-18 and ask yourself 2 questions, is this the most amazing in depth simulator you could have of an F-18? the answer is yes and why does everyone add a curve to suit there controls? yes becasue all the controllers out there are different and need setting up different. No one fit fits all.

Edited August 21, 20205 yr by Nyxx

If all is fine than let's move on and discuss tail biting with fattening pigs ... we need something to discuss. 🙂