Serious Deviation between game and real ka50 flight model - Page 3 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-18-2017, 09:24 PM   #21
Fifou265
Member
 
Fifou265's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 347
Reputation power: 10
Fifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really nice
Default

this is bug report ,i don't understand why people said go buy hind , or don't report bug in this thread .... , truth need to be told
let stick to bug report plz
thx thinkr ,26-J39 for support
let makes blackshark great again

to David OC

maximum combat load is 10800kg , beyond that it is ferry load , maxium g is 1.5
in game you can take 3g without airframe stress or catastrophic failure , another flaw but less serious.

the rotor break at 330 km/h , the animation match the flight model, the flight model don't match the real thing , if what you told was correct then nothing would happen( animation desync)?

in real life forward speed at 320km/h give 750mm clearance , still more than 1/2 clearance
100mm difference between 300 km/h 320 km/h . in game ,about to collide. remember 500mm safety from kamov , and we have 750mm here

i 'm not rude , you are the one rude toward me ,i post real fact you claim i post lie now?my document are from kamov , the best source for this helicopter you can find , i just told the truth

still thx for investigating

how can you say that " for what he believed to be a major fault with the Ka-50 and showed no real evidence "
test again the animation match the flight model

in the past real pilot questionned the low rpm condition as not realistic , idle engine too powerful , autorotation unrealistic ,ed was evasive :sad
__________________
VEAF 735th - www.veaf.org - Formateur Ka50
Escadrille Francophone évoluant sur DCS.
En savoir plus : http://www.veaf.org/fr/735-escadrill...e-dcs-fancaise
Nous rejoindre : http://www.veaf.org/fr/nous-rejoindre

Last edited by Fifou265; 06-18-2017 at 11:12 PM.
Fifou265 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2017, 09:26 PM   #22
Fifou265
Member
 
Fifou265's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 347
Reputation power: 10
Fifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really nice
Default

i hope we have an upgrade bs3 , either crowfunding or something , i just want thing done right
__________________
VEAF 735th - www.veaf.org - Formateur Ka50
Escadrille Francophone évoluant sur DCS.
En savoir plus : http://www.veaf.org/fr/735-escadrill...e-dcs-fancaise
Nous rejoindre : http://www.veaf.org/fr/nous-rejoindre
Fifou265 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 12:25 AM   #23
David OC
Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Reputation power: 7
David OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaD CrC View Post
Fifou. Since 2009, I think we all get used of these rotor collisions and I don't think any experienced DCS Ka50 pilot is having them anymore in normal combat flights. While I do like hardcore DCS pilots like you because that's thanks to you guys that we got such a hardcore sim like DCS, coming after ED team 8 years after the release of the module and ask to correct the blade spacing when flying in marginal conditions sounds a little bit like an "enculage de mouche" (non speaking french readers, even google translate won't make sense of this expression, no need to try ).
You shouldn't "nit-pick" or exert endless effort trying to perfect minor details.

You are talking about very marginal simulated conditions here Fifou265, the very edge of the most extreme conditions, D level simulators struggle trying to simulate this correctly. What I'm saying is, the Ka-50 is a very accurate "simulated" model of the Ka-50 for the home PC and is not worth ED spending how much time? To appsolutely perfect the flight model in this extreme range of flight, it might be impossible to simulate that 100/100.

How much time should ED work on this edge of envelope conditions Fifou? Do you know what goes into these flight models? That I think are all the closest to simulated aircraft you can buy in the sim market place. You are talking about years of work to get to where YOU want it simulated to .

Realise ED has to draw a line here at some point and move forward, you could work on these flight models forever trying for absolute perfection.

Do you really think there is the market size and value for ED to release a Bs3?

-

Last edited by David OC; 06-19-2017 at 12:29 AM.
David OC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 01:10 AM   #24
Weta43
ED Testers Team
 
Weta43's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Aro Valley Wellington New Zealand
Posts: 5,758
Reputation power: 72
Weta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to beholdWeta43 is a splendid one to behold
Default

Quote:
Do you really think there is the market size and value for ED to release a Bs3?
Can you imagine the reaction to a BS3 @ that other SIM site ?
__________________
Cheers.
Weta43 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 08:54 AM   #25
David OC
Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Reputation power: 7
David OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weta43 View Post
Can you imagine the reaction to a BS3 @ that other SIM site ?
They would loose there heads, start a rumor Weta43. Ka-50 Black Shark 3 Confirmed. Then sit back and watch...

Now back on topic...lol

Fifou265,

Your still talking about this clearance of blades at speed, most of what you are taking about is theoretical. What are you asking here for ED to change in the flight model exactly?

What parameters do you think the Ka-50 should reach here, that its not reaching?

I was able to get the Ka-50 to around 340Km/h, than loaded the G force up and....Boom!



At this speed going by your charts you collected, the max +G force at this speed is only around 1.7 Gs. Do you know of a real Ka50 flying at this speed? Link to it, if you have please.


-


All is well flying very very carefully at 340Km/h
--


The danger zone, right before.....Boom. You can fly at these speeds and perhaps more? You needed to be very very careful with any G force load, as per diagram.
--
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Ka50_SQualnew.jpg
Views:	315
Size:	152.9 KB
ID:	164483   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ka50Shot1.jpg
Views:	308
Size:	177.5 KB
ID:	164484   Click image for larger version

Name:	Ka50Shot2.jpg
Views:	307
Size:	147.1 KB
ID:	164485  

David OC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:36 AM   #26
David OC
Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Reputation power: 7
David OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really nice
Default

Yep, more speed...

David OC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2017, 11:15 PM   #27
Fifou265
Member
 
Fifou265's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 347
Reputation power: 10
Fifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really niceFifou265 is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David OC View Post
They would loose there heads, start a rumor Weta43. Ka-50 Black Shark 3 Confirmed. Then sit back and watch...

Now back on topic...lol

Fifou265,

Your still talking about this clearance of blades at speed, most of what you are taking about is theoretical. What are you asking here for ED to change in the flight model exactly?

What parameters do you think the Ka-50 should reach here, that its not reaching?

I was able to get the Ka-50 to around 340Km/h, than loaded the G force up and....Boom!



At this speed going by your charts you collected, the max +G force at this speed is only around 1.7 Gs. Do you know of a real Ka50 flying at this speed? Link to it, if you have please.



All is well flying very very carefully at 340Km/h
--

The danger zone, right before.....Boom. You can fly at these speeds and perhaps more? You needed to be very very careful with any G force load, as per diagram.
--
thanks for your investigation

ok , first i 'm not native english , so it likely hard for people to understand what i'm trying to explain ,the way etc...^^

330 km/h IAS in forward flight with 0 m/s VVI at 50m msl ,in your example you are diving a little at 4m/s not the same thing

i said 330 km/h to show you that the animation is sync with flight model , there is no bug in animation ( at least in forward flight)

the subject is mostly about rotor clearance , check the rotor clearance it must match the data

"Your still talking about this clearance of blades at speed, most of what you are taking about is theoretical"


not correct the data come from real flight test in all kind of maneuver even forward flight

please check the rotor clearance in your video ,fly at same parameter than kamov data full forward flight 0m/s VVI

the thread is about that ; if possible slow down the video look at rotor at 47° 107° like in document
90% time in your video must look at rotor clearance 47° 107°

you talk about flight enveloppe , i talk about rotor clearance , we dont talk about the same problem

i'l make video about that

like you say it is very unlikely that flight model will change .
still people and ED need to see that something is wrong with rotor clearance, and by the way flight model likely the deviation is about rotor Dissymmetry of lift
__________________
VEAF 735th - www.veaf.org - Formateur Ka50
Escadrille Francophone évoluant sur DCS.
En savoir plus : http://www.veaf.org/fr/735-escadrill...e-dcs-fancaise
Nous rejoindre : http://www.veaf.org/fr/nous-rejoindre

Last edited by Fifou265; 06-19-2017 at 11:19 PM.
Fifou265 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 05:09 AM   #28
David OC
Member
 
David OC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Australia
Posts: 390
Reputation power: 7
David OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really niceDavid OC is just really nice
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifou265 View Post
thanks for your investigation

ok , first i 'm not native english , so it likely hard for people to understand what i'm trying to explain ,the way etc...^^

330 km/h IAS in forward flight with 0 m/s VVI at 50m msl ,in your example you are diving a little at 4m/s not the same thing

i said 330 km/h to show you that the animation is sync with flight model , there is no bug in animation ( at least in forward flight)

the subject is mostly about rotor clearance , check the rotor clearance it must match the data

"Your still talking about this clearance of blades at speed, most of what you are taking about is theoretical"


not correct the data come from real flight test in all kind of maneuver even forward flight

please check the rotor clearance in your video ,fly at same parameter than kamov data full forward flight 0m/s VVI

the thread is about that ; if possible slow down the video look at rotor at 47° 107° like in document
90% time in your video must look at rotor clearance 47° 107°

you talk about flight enveloppe , i talk about rotor clearance , we dont talk about the same problem

i'l make video about that

like you say it is very unlikely that flight model will change .
still people and ED need to see that something is wrong with rotor clearance, and by the way flight model likely the deviation is about rotor Dissymmetry of lift

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fifou265 View Post
the subject is mostly about rotor clearance , check the rotor clearance it must match the data
It’s all good Fifou265,

I know there is a bit of a language barrier here and I’m really trying to find out what you really think should be changed/fixed on the Ka-50. I like testing things out against known statistics and theoretical design/manufacturers limitations.

It is theoretical to when something will "exactly" break in the structural limitations of the Ka-50 design.

Forget blade clearance and blade whipping and self-collision for one moment Fifou265.



Let’s pretend these (Dots) above in figure 12 are accurate proven flown flight test results. I managed to hit all these parameters before any structural failure happened. Even the one way out near 380Km/h.

This is what I have tested my results on here Fifou265. Why do you think there is a limitation of 1.5G at 350km/h on chart 12? Are you sure the blades are colliding every time you break the Ka-50 because of the blade animation flies off? Or are you just putting too much stress (Speed and G Force load) on the rotor hub assembly and ED only shows the same structural blade animation failure in sim? So you automatically think that the blades must have collided when past these limits.

So, what do you think the Ka-50 limitations should be compared to chart 12?
Are you asking ED to allow the Ka-50 to "theoretically" go past the limitations of outlined in figure 12, because the blades should be further apart?
For all we know, ED may have used a chart similar to chart 12, to limit the Ka-50. We can only theoretically guess what will fail here at these extreme edge of flight conditions on the Ka-50, there is no documented failures, that we know of anyway. Are you saying the blades are not what should theoretically fail on the Ka-50 when past these limits on chart 12?

Even in the most sophisticated combat helicopter simulation has limitations Fifou265, for what theoretically will happen when at these limits are hit or hit with a 23mm round. ED uses all information that is documented on each subject when and where available, including ballistic penetration data to theoretically workout what might fail on the aircraft.

So just explain here to me what exactly should be the limitations in manufacturer chart "Fig12 picture" should be changed to allow the Ka-50 to have better structural limitations. Just remember, It's not all about blade clearance for these manufacturer limitations, it may well be the sophisticated hub assembly limitations too in chart 12. You see the blades fly off, perhaps because the rotorhub completely failed first, in some flight situations.

From what I can see from testing, the DCS Ka-50 does match the manufacturers structural limitations of Fig. 12 (Structural Qualification). What this structural limitation is doesn't really concern us here really, as this could be many potential theoretical things at play. We only know the manufacturers structural limitations from chart 12, that something could "potentially" can fail when this limit is reached or crossed. Having the blade further apart is not going to help make the Ka-50 more reliable at these marginal edge of the most extreme flying conditions. Something needs to fail here when these limits are crossed, in this simulated aircraft. Rotor-hub, rotor blades, my underwear if I was the test pilot IRL really doing these test stunts.

The faster you go, the more careful on the controls you need to be, the sweet spot is at 170Km/h to 270Km/h to maximized maneuvering ability 3.5Gs, at a max of 9800Kgs. This means you will need to reduce down the fuel load, when taking a full load of ammo into battle.

--

Last edited by David OC; 06-20-2017 at 11:29 PM. Reason: Changed speed sweet spot 170 to 270Km/h
David OC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 09:09 AM   #29
26-J39
Member
 
26-J39's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 921
Reputation power: 14
26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice26-J39 is just really nice
Default

Great post David OC, i was a bit worried things would turn ugly here..

You make some really good points so thank you for explaining them.

In simple terms you could say the flight model is quite accurate but DCS's interpretation of structural limitations of the airframe are modeled with a blade collision, where as in real life any number of failures could occur. Makes sense to me anyway
26-J39 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-20-2017, 10:00 AM   #30
Fri13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,242
Reputation power: 8
Fri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the roughFri13 is a jewel in the rough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BitMaster View Post
FYI: In-game the Ka-50 can dive at +/-450km/h and get out of the dive in 1 piece !

Still, nice find !
Yes.... You can do all the things when you push collective down.

Doing backside flip at 300km/h speed starting at 20m altitude ain't a problem when you only initiate the maneuver with collective and immediately push it down while the fuselag and wings completes the backflip.

Then it is only critical to know at what point you start to pull collective again to avoid crashing ground after quick dive.

But what is talked in the manuals is the distance between rotor disks while you are actually pulling collective instead having them just autorotating.

The skill required to master is to know how much collective you need at what maneuvers and speeds so you have the controllability but you do not collide blades.

At higher speeds helicopters fly like an airplane and having a turning tail assists a lot as we can even more do all kind turns and flips without using so much the rotors as we do have slight gliding capabilities.
Fri13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
bug, flight model, ka50

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:50 PM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.