Why would side stick struggle to match central stick in terms of feedback from control surfaces? Aren't both options FBW by this point? Then what's the difference?
Why would side stick struggle to match the advantage of central stick in terms of feedback from control surfaces? Aren't both options FBW by this point? Then shouldn't both options perform the same?
I don't know either, but if you read the paper it is the statement of the scientists, so I take that as a fact.
One thing I got from the paper is that in side stick design, due to the posture of the seat, arm rest combined with the G force, there is more "wrong" input merged to true intended input which will lead to false action of the computer. Let's say pilot press the stick with force A that would translate to the right force and angle of the surface, but at 2G, his hand and arm adds force A+B=C which will translate to faulty control. The computer would have hard time to figure out what A is out of C, it has to compansate the extra force B according to its understanding of the velocity vectors. It is a guess work from years of tests and always a best guess. In a central stick design, due to the sitting posture and the arm is free floating, there is inheretely less such "faulty" input for computer to guess.
So the problem is the physical posture and arrangement that introduces faulty input that FBW computer has to guess and compensate, and one can never be sure of how good the computer can do. Remember developping FBW takes most of its time on optimizing the feedback and translation between digital signal and control surfaces' angles. Central stick arrangement inheretly demands less such work and therefor more reliable. It is similar to "do you trust the auto-pilot of your car as much as yourself today, and how long does it take auto-pilot of car to convince you."