The DCS Spitfire - It's Too Twitchy!! . . . or is it? 

Hi Phil, great video regarding pitch sensitivity. I do have a counterpoint regarding other characteristics of the DCS Spitfire Before I get started I do want to say that the Spitfire in DCS is remarkably well modeled. That is not to say that it is flawless. The yaw controls really are oversensitive and (at full yaw, near full power) the required pitch/roll inputs are almost the exact opposite of what this report states. The nose attitude at full sideslip is below the horizon, yaw overcounters roll resulting in a slight turn by far more than 7 degrees. See fig 30, 31 note this is for steady state slips. I'm happy to make a video about this to answer any questions. The Spitfire in DCS also doesn't represent the pitching motions associated with yaw. The report you used (for the mk V) is particularly blunt about the severity of these pitching motions - they even caused the motor to starve! Likewise the 109 has some issues (I know this is adjacent to your video, and this isn't a counterpoint to your video) 1) Stick force is simulated as a % at which stick movement completely stops. Say (pulling numbers out of my ass here) at 500km/h a pilot is tested as being able to pull 60% of the stick's pitch range due to weight on the controls. In DCS this means at 500km/h you can use 60% of your stick's range with no impingement on speed of deflection. You can't pull beyond 60% at all. This is compounded by the fact that stick force is heavy down to a lower speed than in any reports I've read (greater % restriction at lower km/h in game than in real life) 2) The stall characteristics of the 109 are famous;y stable, but the DCS 109 is so stable in a stall that it should replace the Cessna as the go-to trainer aircraft. I have, as yet, not managed an uncontrolled spin regardless of entry conditions. Even coming in, trimming full nose up and holding full aft deflection with full rudder and aileron does not induce a spin.

Well I have warthog and so tried this on the spit.....goodness me what a difference, I've adapted now to the 47 and 51 and in my opinion it's made control so much better of all three aircraft. Thanks for the vid thus has really helped.

@@mckseal I am not sure about that. I think in DCS is simulated the pilot strenght to around 30kgf.

cheers fella :)

It's also easy to figure out yourself. Either a curve, or saturation limit, is needed to fly with a short stick when the plane is super-responsive in pitch. Some people still fly without it, though--so only the smallest pitch inputs are needed, giving the 'twitchy' feel.

@@devilsoffspring5519 I'm not sure if everyone jumps to that conclusion right away when getting into DCS warbirds for the first time. I did, but then I wasn't new to the sim or simming in general. Definitely a good thing to point out to folks who may be struggling or even turned off of DCS warbirds when a simple tweak will do the trick.

Yeah, you've been a bastion of reason among that sea of silliness :)

@@philstyle HAHAHA, I wouldn't say so much, but it's been a real struggle so many time just trying for people to understand what's going on. I kind of gave up some time ago on ED forums, so your efforts keeping on it are really welcome mate. So many times key to warbirds is "just" understanding the physics of what happens, when and why, and this matter is no different. GREAT vid and visual explanation mate, really great. Thanks.

minor update: This has been so helpful for other modules too. I kick myself daily I didn't think of it earlier ;

Try the Jetseat mate. It's a game changer. I can't fly without it now.

All axes can be adjusted, yes

Hi mum !

Yes, DCS is Digital Combat Simulator. The base game is free, but you'll need to buy the aircraft modules. There are free mods available, like the A4 Skyhawk and others.

I would leave the Viper alone, since its flight control system changes the input gains, depending on the situation. Applying curves on top of that, can make things quite messy. Also heads up with the trig.

@@kilianortmann9979 I'll give that a go when I next jump on it. Thanks 🙂👍🏼

That's not normal. I don't know what is going on, but here are some checks you can try: Recalibrate your joystick. Check that your forward and back trim are correctly bound. Check also that your cure mapping on your elevator follows your stick. Open the axis settings and make sure the indicator follows what you are doing with the stick. Don't fly with your flaps down.

@@philstyle Thanks for the reply. Yes it calibrates ok and is centred correctly. The trim is going the correct way and fully to the end of the full down position. When looking in DCS at the fine axis tuning, it is centred correctly and moves smoothly along its full range. Very strange.!! As I mentioned my other simulators all work ok (Xplane 11 and MSF 2020)

@@stewartlunney6749 So it might be something specific to your setup. This isn't how it should behave. I suggest asking on the Storm of War discord. There's around 700 DCS warbird players there. Someone is bound to have had the same issue. link: discord.com/invite/4Csg6E7

@@philstyle Ok thanks again

Adjust to what you are happy with.

It's stable in level flight, but not in dogfights.

Totally different bird. It's fly by wire not direct connection as the starting point.

I don't have an opinion. I don't own the P47.

Probably. I'd not use it though. Turning until you black out was something pilots did frequently. Maybe for "easy" mode they could have something like that.

@@philstyle spot on why on earth would you want a fake setting other than "game - arcade" mode. DCS spend a fortune getting the flight model realistic because that is what 99% of us want..

It's more the size of the pixel on the monitor itself that will make it hard......the smaller the pixel the harder it will be to spot. But for the most part higher resolutions make it harder to spot right now.

Higher resolutions continue to reduce individual pixel size on the same hardware.. The principle remains the same and will until the laws of physics change..

@@philstyle yeah I know its just that Ive heard IL 2 Sturmovikh managed that pretty well so I thought there was hope

@@rama7267 As a result of your comment I have just tried IL2... Oh dear. I watched an He111 fly away from me, after a short while it started flicking in and out rapidly and then, all of a sudden it quadrupled in size and became a large 3D object facing the wrong direction! What a horrific system. I hope DCS never does that.

Twitchy is just a word people use. Language is fluid. If people all use that word to describe the same thing, then it is the right word to use. I think we can all be a little relaxed and accommodating to that.

@@philstyle In aviation we always aim to work as objectively as possible. The word 'twitchy' is not the correct word to use as its meaning does not describe the characteristics. Just because lots of people use it incorrectly does not make it correct.

@@Chief-Instructor This isn't aviation . . . this is gaming. Twitchy has been used in gaming for a long time, it's an established term among gamers to describe a scenario where the outputs from a modeled machines (be it a car, or boat, or spaceship or aircraft) feel uncomfortably abrupt and or exaggerated in relation to the player's inputs on their hardware. Curtis Pitt's, famous quote sums this up nicely when he said that there was "no such thing as a twitchy airplane-only twitchy pilots.” In PC gaming, that's exactly the point. Simulated (NOT REAL!) aircraft seem "twitchy" because their extreme responsiveness does not translate well onto default hardware setups. So, the word Twitchy is applied. You'll notice, if you're really paying attention that this is why I said that the aircraft which are simulated "seem to be" twitchy. Not that they actually ARE twitchy. Now, if Aviators don't know how the term twitchy is being applied in this context then that's really of almost zero consequence. It's kind-of irrelevant here what "aviators" talk about over their lunch-breaks. However, just for the sake of being a little thorough here and putting this attempt at gatekeeping to the test - aviation communicators and pilots DO use twitchy to describe aircraft handling and have been doing so for at least 40 years. - The FAA themselves use the term "twitchy" as short-hand for "overly sensitive to control inputs" in circular advisory 90-109 issued in 2011. - August 2016, General Aviation News used "twitchy" to describe the handling characteristics of the Cirrus SR22T vs Cessna TTx - November 2011, Air and Space magazine used "twitchy" to describe modern FBW jets - September 2015 Flying Magazine made reference to the Tri-Pace's Twitchy reputation - Flying Magazine in 1986 described a whole class of aircraft as twitchy - Oscar Taylor Pilot of the Aerostar 600 used "twitchy" in reference to aircraft handling for the AOPA, reported in Sept 2011 - in May 1975 Flying magazine used the term "twitchy" in direct reference to highly response fighter aircraft - Pilot magazine referred to the Extra 330LT as twitchy in 2014 - Dynon Avionics use "twitchy" as shorthand for the frequent, fast, aggressive adjustments that might result from an overly sensitive roll servo

youre being a bit twitchy over the usage of a word lul