For those who trim by tapping the trim button

If anyone can demonstrate a channel-normal Ka-50 fight with airliner-type turns without any upsets in attitude on trim button presses I'd like to see it. I can't fly the helicopter 100% smoothly. No matter how smoothly I try every trim press has a transient impulse simply due to the channel authority being switched off suddenly. It has nothing to do with shifting stick position.

 

The real helicopter can't possibly act this way.

 

The upsets in attitude in there in the real video, it's just comes with the system. The kamov is one of the few actual mil sim modules that ED managed to get to us consumers. If a critical system like autopilot behaviour during trimming wasn't accurate it wouldn't have been good enough for pilot training. With practice it's possible to be minimised.

 

In order to provide the most realistic experience of flying the Ka-50, Kamov has supplied us with a host of information not available to the general public. Once we had beta versions of the software available for testing, Kamov reviewed the software for accuracy (systems and flight dynamics) and helped us revise the simulation for greater realism.

Military contracts are not a license to print money, as often they are required to be done on a “cost plus” basis, and I can assure you that they are very demanding as the simulation has to be perfect so as not to introduce “negative training”.

My guts agree with Frederf. When I think of this trimming bump and the required "lead-trimming" to counter it, I have a hard time believing the real helicopter was designed like that. In the video of the real heli, we can see some bumps sometimes when the pilot hits the trim, but after watching it again more carefully, I noticed that most of his trim presses have no bumps, so the bumps could have been from the pilot's stick movement... I don't know, it's hard to judge by the video alone, so I don't think the video is conclusive...

But then we have ED's word saying that the system was tested by Kamov themselves for use in the real military simulator for training real pilots, and I have no reason to not believe ED. So I'm very confused. Is it possible that the version used by the real pilots is a bit different than the commercial version?

My humble suspicion is that, in the real heli, there would be a slight delay between the press of the trim and the deactivation of the autopilot. This would allow perfect "tap-trimming" or "click-trimming" without any bumps. But how could I know...

But how could I know...

Also depends a lot on your equipment you use. From the outset we are at a disadvantage insofar as our controllers are concerned due to the obvious shortened throw, amongst other things. Then again it depends on the particular controller used.

The list goes on.

Personally the only way I can fly the shark is with a Cougar, modded with the UberIINxt. Smooth flight guaranteed. Anything else (Warthog etc etc) and I'm useless.

Hey,

 

I'm learning the Ka-50 and, man, what a pleasant aircraft to fly... so smooth! I want to get proficient in controlling it in all different modes: autopilot on, fight director on autopilot off.

 

Been reading a lot about the trim lately, as well as watching Youtube videos and experimenting with it. I now understand how the Ka-50 trim works, and the question I have is related to using the trim with autopilot ON and flight director OFF, and is independent of whether you use an FFB joystick, conventional joystick or joystick without springs and FFB (I use conventional stick with springs, btw).

 

Here's the deal: you have autopilot ON and flight director OFF, you move your joystick to a new position, (let's say slightly FWD), stabilize it and tap the trim button. In a time span of a few milliseconds, the following sequence of events happen, as I understand (please tell me if I understand something wrong):

 

1) upon pressing the trim button, autopilot stabilization gets turned off;

 

2) without autopilot, your FWD input gets amplified, even though you're still holding the stick at the same place and even though it's during only a few milliseconds;

 

3) upon releasing the trim button, the new amplified input gets saved and fixed by the flight control system, and autopilot gets re-engaged holding this new amplified input;

 

4) aircraft pitches down noticeably instead of holding the pitch you originally intended when you pressed the trim button.

 

Now I'm able to work around that by moving the stick while I keep the trim button depressed, and releasing the button when the aircraft is pointing where I want. But as I read the forums I see that many people trim by simply tapping the trim button. Doesn't it bump your aircraft slightly out of position when you do that? How exactly do you trim by tapping without getting this effect?

 

Thanks for your input!

Hi PeaceSells,

you are starting to identify some fundamental points with the DCS KA-50 and how you move forward from this position is critical to how you view the KA-50.

To a lot of DCS users the KA-50 is an automaton, a blind machine that needs directional input and is fundamentally an uninteresting machine that allows its pilot to relax to the point of boredom.

To a few DCS users the Automaton is the back up that is utilized at critical points of engagement, it simply backs up the skill of the pilot whenever required.

when you search high and low in these forums you will realise that there are two school of thoughts.

1) KA-50 is boring or at least adept at its job.

2) KA-50 is the most exciting, responsive and deadly attack chopper ever.

How you view the Automatons will decide whether you are 1 or 2.

I am a single click trimmer.

It has nothing to do with stick equipment. I've seen a skematic for the control system and the AP gets its modifier in line after the stick placement. The control surfaces are moving without a change in stick position. They still happen in FFB-mode where you trim at constant joystick deflection (i.e. constant virtual cockpit stick position).

The upsets are due to the AP hold dumping its non-zero input suddenly on trim event. One reason why the DCS upsets are so large is that as you apply stick force against the artificial device the AP hold is adding in contrary input from its authority reserve to maintain the capture attitude. Thus when you finally set up a new attitude and trim it's likely that one or more channels are saturated and this is a huge dump of input on trim.

It's almost like the microswitches aren't modeled that sense pilot stick input and stop the AP channel from providing contrary input. By setting the X/Y saturation to 10 you can put yourself on par with the AP's ultimate authority.

What's weird is that the bank channel fights you, if you add +5 it adds -5 and you go nowhere. But the pitch channel is different, not countering small changes in stick Y. Rudder seems similar to Y.

DCS's lack of channel-freezing microswitch means that every time you trim you're probably dumping saturated AP input instead of a much smaller input so the upsets are as big as they can be. I'm also guessing the input dump is happening in 0.00s while the real system has a finite centering time.

I looked in FMOptions.lua and it's more clear that the system is being modeled as a PID controller with 80% gain in bank and 25% gain in pitch (-15% rudder?) which explains why it seems like the AP is persistent in bank but free in pitch.

Crank all the K values to 1 and the helicopter is really sticky in attitude.

I take back the HUD comment. The prototype HUD layout with the pitch ladder parallel to the horizon I really like better. The green wire ADI is pretty dumb but if that's what Kamov did then that's what Kamov did.

Program in the microswitch channel-freezing behavior along with a longer time scale on channel recentering and these channel zeroing upsets would be much much smaller and less abrupt.

I have a MSFF2 and use the "hold trim" method... I prefer to disable completely the autopilot and fly only in manual, what I miss is a parameter in the configuration of the force feedback where you can set the damping effect when the trim is pressed so the stick will still have some resistance

I have a MSFF2 and use the "hold trim" method... I prefer to disable completely the autopilot and fly only in manual, what I miss is a parameter in the configuration of the force feedback where you can set the damping effect when the trim is pressed so the stick will still have some resistance

You mean you fly exclusively in manual or only during the time you're holding the trim button?

You mean you fly exclusively in manual or only during the time you're holding the trim button?

I use the autopilot only in a cruise or when I want to aim and use the shkval

Looks like I'm a 2 according to Rogue...

The shark is easily the most effective ground attack craft in the game. The A-10 may be able to keep up sometimes because it can get back and reload quicker in most cases but as far as getting in, reking face getting out... The Shark takes the cake.

AP in a helo should be viewed differently than AP in fixed wing aircraft. KA-50 route mode AP is similar to that of a fixed wing, but that's where the similarities end. If you use only the trim reset hold method, you're gaining no advantage of having separate AP channels because you're effectively altering the values of the 4 channels simultaneously, even if that's not your intention. If you view the separate channels as independent however, you can find added benefit. I have the 4 AP channels set up to the CMS on my WH HOTAS. If I want to change heading I do CMS up to disable heading AP, find my new heading (without fighting the dampener), then do CMS up again to re-enable heading AP. At this point if I don't have a waypoint selected, I'll see the XTE Steering Mark change and know that a new value has been set for heading AP. My speed, pitch, bank, and alt all stay the same since I didn't overwrite those values in the computer. This even works in Route Mode. The one exception to this practice for me is when I'm evading a missile. In that case I have EmergDisableAP set up to CMS push. Also, if changing your entire flight profile (speed heading and alt simultaneously) then holding trim or using FD mode is still the best method. By learning to use the separate channels effectively, I became a much better Blackshark pilot.

I should also mention that I find AltAP really useful for doing popups.

1. Find target while at a far standoff distance

2. Create datalink point for target

3. Use ABRIS to find a terrain masked ingress to move to a closer firing position

4. Mask to firing position and select datalink ref

5. Uncage shval and camera will move automatically to datalink

6. Set auto turn to target

7. With Alt AP on, move collective until you slowly start to gain alt then back it off a bit

8. Turn Alt AP off to pop up above the terrain then set Alt AP on again to stop

9. Take the shot

10. Turn Alt AP off and collective down

After I got used to this method I found that my popup shots were much quicker and effective. It's good TTP.

AP in a helo should be viewed differently than AP in fixed wing aircraft. KA-50 route mode AP is similar to that of a fixed wing, but that's where the similarities end. If you use only the trim reset hold method, you're gaining no advantage of having separate AP channels because you're effectively altering the values of the 4 channels simultaneously, even if that's not your intention. If you view the separate channels as independent however, you can find added benefit. I have the 4 AP channels set up to the CMS on my WH HOTAS. If I want to change heading I do CMS up to disable heading AP, find my new heading (without fighting the dampener), then do CMS up again to re-enable heading AP. At this point if I don't have a waypoint selected, I'll see the XTE Steering Mark change and know that a new value has been set for heading AP. My speed, pitch, bank, and alt all stay the same since I didn't overwrite those values in the computer. This even works in Route Mode. The one exception to this practice for me is when I'm evading a missile. In that case I have EmergDisableAP set up to CMS push. Also, if changing your entire flight profile (speed heading and alt simultaneously) then holding trim or using FD mode is still the best method. By learning to use the separate channels effectively, I became a much better Blackshark pilot.

 

I should also mention that I find AltAP really useful for doing popups.

1. Find target while at a far standoff distance

2. Create datalink point for target

3. Use ABRIS to find a terrain masked ingress to move to a closer firing position

4. Mask to firing position and select datalink ref

5. Uncage shval and camera will move automatically to datalink

6. Set auto turn to target

7. With Alt AP on, move collective until you slowly start to gain alt then back it off a bit

8. Turn Alt AP off to pop up above the terrain then set Alt AP on again to stop

9. Take the shot

10. Turn Alt AP off and collective down

 

After I got used to this method I found that my popup shots were much quicker and effective. It's good TTP.

Never thought of them that way. Need to try. Thanks.

AP in a helo should be viewed differently than AP in fixed wing aircraft. KA-50 route mode AP is similar to that of a fixed wing, but that's where the similarities end. If you use only the trim reset hold method, you're gaining no advantage of having separate AP channels because you're effectively altering the values of the 4 channels simultaneously, even if that's not your intention. If you view the separate channels as independent however, you can find added benefit. I have the 4 AP channels set up to the CMS on my WH HOTAS. If I want to change heading I do CMS up to disable heading AP, find my new heading (without fighting the dampener), then do CMS up again to re-enable heading AP. At this point if I don't have a waypoint selected, I'll see the XTE Steering Mark change and know that a new value has been set for heading AP. My speed, pitch, bank, and alt all stay the same since I didn't overwrite those values in the computer. This even works in Route Mode. The one exception to this practice for me is when I'm evading a missile. In that case I have EmergDisableAP set up to CMS push. Also, if changing your entire flight profile (speed heading and alt simultaneously) then holding trim or using FD mode is still the best method. By learning to use the separate channels effectively, I became a much better Blackshark pilot.

This is an ingenious way of flying it, indeed, and I never thought of that... But I guess that, IRL, if this was the way to fly the shark, I think it would have the AP channel buttons on HOTAS?

My point with this thread, even if I didn't directly say it:

The autopilot + trim system's purpose is to stop the shark from oscillating in unwanted directions, and to hold it steadily at your chosen heading, pitch angle, bank angle, etc. (which you fix when you press the trim button). But in-game, when you press the trim (no matter if click or hold) the first thing it does is un-fix your chosen direction. That's why I said I suspected that IRL the shark's trim would only un-fix things after a small delay if you keep holding the trim. Frederf put it with different words and in a much more technical way in post #29. I have no means of confirming this IRL, but I do know it would make perfect click trimming possible, without destabilization.

This is why I, personally, don't think that destabilizing the shark by disabling autopilot channels (even if only one at a time) or even enabling Flight Director or holding the trim is the primary way of flying it...

This is why I, personally, don't think that destabilizing the shark by disabling autopilot channels (even if only one at a time) or even enabling Flight Director or holding the trim is the primary way of flying it...

Quite correct: It is not.

As StrongHarm also correctly states, the problem begins with people assuming that the Black Shark has an 'autopilot', probably in the strict sense most of the time.

It has an Auto Flight Control System (AFCS).

For a mor introductory explanation, see the following post:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36246

By no means comprehensive, but a jolly good start on one's journey to begin to understand the nuances involved.

That link does not adequately describe the (for lack of a better term) autopilot insomuch as the hold channels interact with trimming. I want to point out the much-respected AlphaOneSix's comment (plus my own in agreemnt) and how it's completely wrong regarding DCS's modeling:

It has commonly been noted that in the normal autopilot mode with the three normal autopilot channels on, the autopilot will fight you if you move the controls. This is not true. It is true that absent any control inputs from the pilot, the autopilot will attempt to hold the aircraft's heading and attitude. However, if the pilot moves the cyclic or the pedals, the autopilot is aware of that and makes no move to interfere, although it continues to provide control input for the purpose of dampening (stability augmentation is the term typically used in the West).

Consider the control output can be -100 (left) to +100 (right). The AP channels have 20% authority and can add or subtract up to 10. In the normal trimmed condition say the pilot stick and AP are both 0 and captured bank is level. If the helicopter develops a bank to the right the AP will apply between 0 and -10 to return the bank. The AP_K_RollPilot = 0.8 as defined by FMOptions.lua which scales the counter response to 80% strength.

As the pilot adds stick input +1, +2, +3, +4, etc. the AP is adding -1, -2, -3 as needed to maintain the captured bank. THEREFORE THE AP IS FIGHTING PILOT INPUT. There is a minimal response in bank in the pilot's desired direction from two causes: a time delay on AP response and a gain factor < 1.0. As the pilot input exceeds +10 the AP cannot exceed -10 to counter and the bank responds as expected.

Unfortunately the AP channel is saturated holding this -10 at all times as the bank channel is overridden by pilot stick input. The upset on trim event occurs because this -10 goes to 0 very quickly (possibly in a single sim frame). Suddenly the +20 from pilot and -10 from AP goes to +20 pilot and 0 from AP. The total control output jumps by +10 suddenly.

It's undesireable behavior. Better behavior would be to somehow detect pilot stick input and prevent the AP from applying counter input. A device for measuring the strain on the artificial feel system could prevent a change in AP input when stick force direction is the same direction as the hold channel error. E.g. if AP thinks helicopter is banked too far to the right and stick input is to the right, AP value is frozen.

The result of such a system is that pilot stick right from a level trimmed condition would respond as if the hold was not engaged. If the stick is centered it would apply up to full AP input to resume the captured bank.

This solution doesn't completely eliminate the possibility of an abrupt AP input dump on trim but it does discourage it. Without a freeze on pilot input away from captured value the AP input magnitude on trim event will almost always be the maximum possible. With a freeze it should be no more than the input before the pilot's hands moved the stick, a fraction of saturation.

If one wanted to further refine the AP input handling it may be possible to "bleed down" the AP input from non-zero to zero value smoothly as the pilot is applying manual input such that by the time the trim event occurs the AP is already centered and there is no abrupt change at all.

The bleed down of AP input is best scheduled in the midst of manual control in such a way that its change is unnoticable compared to the pilot's input. E.g. on a 3-5 second time scale. Of course it's OK if the AP input hasn't reached zero by the next trim event as it will simply cause a smaller upset than if there was no bleed down at all. Similarly if the trim button is held the bleed down can be accelerated and only returned to zero instantly at trim release. Thus a habit of a 1-second trim hold would further smooth the AP channel recentering.

====

I would also suggest the introduction of full PID controllers for the channels with P, I, and D gain coefficients. With proportional, integral, and differential factors the behavior can be fully optimized. It appears currently there are only P, proportional terms in the control loop. This is the "what is the error?" question to which a response answer is given. Bank error is +5°, apply left roll input 50. This is a simple form of control which only considers the current error. Unfortunately a simple P-controller does not differentiate from fixing the error quickly or slowly and often oscillates around the desired value.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PID_controller

The I, integral, term is time-sensitive becoming less tolerant of errors based on the history of the error. Its use is to eventually eliminate an error as time goes on. P-only controllers often get stuck holding a heading of 359° against a desired 360° because 1° error doesn't produce enough proportional response to finish the alignment. The I-term in the controller applies 0 correction for a 1° which has existed for 0 seconds, a unit of correction for the same error which has lasted for 1 second, two units of correction if it has lasted for 2 seconds, and so on. The I-term should be very very weak at short times and dominant over long times such that it only comes into play for persistent errors. Since it is based on the past it will overshoot the desired value if dominant.

The D term is differential which cares about the rate of error change. Usually its purpose is a dampening one to achieve a certain correction rate and prevent overshooting back and forth through the desired value. E.g. if the bank was too much but decreasing very rapidly the D-term might actually apply bank input away from the desired bank value to avoid smashing through the goal and beyond it. It's very common for the D term to oppose movement, being dominant if the error correction is too rapid and being overridden by the tradiational terms otherwise.

A full PID control is simply an equation where all terms are added together to get a result. The inputs are current error (P), error persistence (I), and error rate of change (D). These three inputs are actually just the error signal, its derivative, and its integral. The integral should be based on a finite time in the past possibly weighted to value the recent more than less-recent past.

Control = -0.5xError - 0.25XErrorRate - 0.03xErrorPersistence

Example values: Desired heading 360°, current heading 030°, left yaw at 10°/s, weighted-average error history 250°s.

Control = -0.5x30 - 0.25x(-10) - 0.03(250) = -15 + 2.5 - 7.5 = -20.

The result can be read as the current heading should be decreased, add left yaw. The heading is reaching the desired one too rapidly, apply right yaw. The error has persisted for quite some time, apply left yaw. The sum of closing the error, reducing the closing rate, and not tolerating a long-term error is -20 (left) yaw.

@Frederf: But do you know if the real shark is like that?

@Frederf: But do you know if the real shark is like that?

That's what I want to know as well... Matt says Kamov signed off the sim to train operators so I want to believe the systems are accurate as hell but who knows.

I want to point out the much-respected AlphaOneSix's comment[...]

Can you link the post of AlphaOneSix please? In which context was that comment made? Wasn´t that comment part of a discussion regarding the "AP" of the Mi-8?:book:

That's what I want to know as well... Matt says Kamov signed off the sim to train operators so I want to believe the systems are accurate as hell but who knows.

We've had this argument for years now, from the very beginning, from peeps that cannot seem to fly the Helo like they think it's supposed to be flown and then blame the systems-modelling. Also led to the 're-centre control input' delay addition way back when to make life easier for us using SIM controllers as opposed to the RL helo controls. I'm sure a couple of RL Kamov pilots from the .ru section of the forums also chimed in on threads stating that all is in order if I remember correctly but hey, you know how it goes over the internet :)

@159th_Viper:

This has nothing do with being able to fly the helo... I own BS2 for what, 2 weeks now and I already can make it do whatever I want, autopilot on or off. Bump or no bump in trim, it makes no difference, it's not a hard aircraft to fly.

However, if this is accurate to the real life shark or not is a different story, and that's my real curiosity. I, like most ppl here I believe, want to think that I'm flying it as close as possible to the real thing...

However, if this is accurate to the real life shark or not is a different story, and that's my real curiosity. I, like most ppl here I believe, want to think that I'm flying it as close as possible to the real thing...

Here's an excerpt from an interview Matt gave shortly after release:

 

RPS: What kind of help did you receive from Kamov during the development of Black Shark?

Matt: In order to provide the most realistic experience of flying the Ka-50, Kamov has supplied us with a host of information not available to the general public. Once we had beta versions of the software available for testing, Kamov reviewed the software for accuracy (systems and flight dynamics) and helped us revise the simulation for greater realism.

 

RPS: Did feedback from real Ka-50 pilots help shape any part of the sim?

 

Matt: Most certainly. Given the unique flight characteristics of the Ka-50, it was important that we have the real operators of this aircraft fly our simulation and provide feedback as to what was right and wrong. Their participation in the testing of the simulation contributed greatly to the level of detail and accuracy of the flight dynamics. In addition, on the beta tester team we have had a maintenance engineer who works on Kamov civilian helicopters, and many of the systems are similar to those in the Ka-50. Since the release of the project, we’ve been very happy to see the very positive responses from actual helicopter pilots about how authentic the feeling of helicopter flight is in DCS: Black Shark.

@Frederf: But do you know if the real shark is like that?

I don't know for sure but I would be surprised. It looks like a constantly-on P-controller where the gains were reduced until it wouldn't oscillate. It smells like a programmer close enough-ism and not a mature aviation industry design. There are more sophisticated designs in aircraft decades older.

Can you link the post of AlphaOneSix please? In which context was that comment made? Wasn´t that comment part of a discussion regarding the "AP" of the Mi-8?:book:

Post #25 https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=36246 January 2009.

This ship has sailed long ago on the "we did our homework, trust us it's perfect" line.

Over the years I think E.D. has changed most of the things to do with aircraft FM where someone has demonstrated that the original implementations was actually wrong.

They haven't changed a lot of things where people complained they were wrong, but were either unable to provide data to back up their claims (so it came down to opinion), or where the available data showed E.D. were correct.

With respect to your opinion that the AP is incorrectly modelled, it's all very well writing

"This ship has sailed long ago on the "we did our homework, trust us it's perfect" line. ",

but the reality is that this/these conversations have been going on since release (i.e. Before the ship sailed anywhere...), and the response has always been the same - Kamov as a corporate entity, and pilots that have flown the aircraft, all say the behaviour is 'as expected'.

Maybe it's not the way you'd have done it.

Maybe to you "It smells like a programmer close enough-ism and not a mature aviation industry design".

Doesn't really matter...

Neither of those are actually evidence that it isn't the way it is in real life.

See this thread on the Su-33 refuelling AoA indexer.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194158

The poster demonstrates how almost every other aircraft - including Russian aircraft - have AoA indexers that work the other way around to the way it's implemented in the SIM.

-Must be wrong...

See the last post from the person that started the thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3266696&postcount=32

Doesn't it all boil down to the fact that we should be open minded enough to just figure out how to best control the sim shark? I mean... I think everyone involved, including DCS folks, would agree that a sim aircraft is not the same thing as a real aircraft. Very close... Sure. Same thing... No.

So... No matter how the RU GOV trains it's pilots I think it's safe to assume that they're training them to fly the real thing the way they want them to fly it. As much as we'd like to have the immersion and all that goes with it... ultimately we aren't going to be stepping into a KA50 any time soon. Or very few of us :).

So... All that said... Why should we care too much if the way the RU GOV does things is the best way to do them in either a real KA50 or our SIM one?

I say experiment with all of it and come up with whatever best suits our needs in the SIM KA50. For me... That's trim holding with no FD and no ALT channels. If I don't do it that way the chopper fights my input AND those bumps created when I press the trim button have caused me to touch the tips more than a few times when I'm trimmed near the edge of the envelope. It's bad enough that when trimmed near the edge of the envelope I've taken to reducing blade pitch by a couple degrees just as I press the trim, then bring the blades back.

One more thing to note... I flew the KA50 up the Colorado river with no AP channels turned on the other day. The chopper was both more responsive and faster without it trying to hold a trimmed attitude. I don't think that's a great fighting config... as I've gotten used to the system flying the chopper for me as I engage targets in some situations but... It's worth noting I think :).

Oh and by the way...

The trim seems to mostly still work with all AP channels turned off.

It's not the same though...

I'm sure it has to do with the fact that in the SIM it's still telling the aircraft where I want my stick's "center" to be like it always does... so it's like it's trimming with just stick position instead of stick position combined with damping. There is more oscillation when trimmed without any AP channels enabled.

Over the years I think E.D. has changed most of the things to do with aircraft FM where someone has demonstrated that the original implementations was actually wrong.

 

They haven't changed a lot of things where people complained they were wrong, but were either unable to provide data to back up their claims (so it came down to opinion), or where the available data showed E.D. were correct.

 

With respect to your opinion that the AP is incorrectly modelled, it's all very well writing

"This ship has sailed long ago on the "we did our homework, trust us it's perfect" line. ",

but the reality is that this/these conversations have been going on since release (i.e. Before the ship sailed anywhere...), and the response has always been the same - Kamov as a corporate entity, and pilots that have flown the aircraft, all say the behaviour is 'as expected'.

 

Maybe it's not the way you'd have done it.

Maybe to you "It smells like a programmer close enough-ism and not a mature aviation industry design".

 

Doesn't really matter...

Neither of those are actually evidence that it isn't the way it is in real life.

 

See this thread on the Su-33 refuelling AoA indexer.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=194158

 

The poster demonstrates how almost every other aircraft - including Russian aircraft - have AoA indexers that work the other way around to the way it's implemented in the SIM.

-Must be wrong...

 

See the last post from the person that started the thread:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3266696&postcount=32

Thanks for bringing this info to this thread, Weta43.

I agree with you that we're unable to prove that the BS2 system is wrong compared to the real aircraft. It's not also my intention to ask ED to change stuff based on just our interpretations and without any proof.

But anyway, considering these:

- The military and the companies who develop for them aren't exactly know for their passion for sharing with the general public detailed info about their technologies. Maybe Kamov didn't put the same level of enthusiasm in reviewing their trainer version of the sim and the commercial (our) version of the sim...

- You said that, over the years, ED has changed some stuff in the sim that people have demonstrated that were wrong. This kinda suggests that Kamov's review wasn't that enthusiastic? (Unless theses changes were done before Kamov's review?)

- I have't seen anyone demonstrate the logic in the current system. All the arguments were only based on 'Kamov approved it' or 'you have to get used to it'. Yes, you can get used and get good with it, and you could also get good in doing strafe runs in the A-10 flying upside down. Whether that's the most effective way of doing it or not is another discussion.

- Frederf does have a strong point and I have to agree with him. There are many even simpler ways than what he described to make things much more effective. Hard to believe that Kamov actually designed it like that...

Considering these, I do highly suspect it's wrong.

Anyway, regardless of that, I am loving BS2. I acquired it about 2 weeks ago and, been playing it addictively. I can see it's a module I will enjoy for a long time.

I love that this thread re-occurs every so often :)

(Also, see Sig)

Nate