Little note about the FM from the devs

How much time since Huey was released?

And still no engine damage because overheat.

This is preventing me about enjoying it? NO

HINT: Only multicrew chopper around here.

Simulation of engine overheating is as important as the flight model?

It's a flight simulator, not an engine simulator...

I don't see it, but to each his own, my friend.

Simulation of engine overheating is as important as the flight model?

 

It's a flight simulator, not an engine simulator...

 

I don't see it, but to each his own, my friend.

They are both just as important but they are two of two different contexts. One is very noticeable and in your face the other is more of a subtle but can be just as obvious when you're clearly aware of it existing. What makes them similar is that they very clearly and profoundly contribute to breaking the reality of the simulation of each aircraft.

The Huey engine model is so absurdly abused by people that fly it and mission builders its just as laughable as the UFO flying Gazelle.

So basically what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with the flight model and that it does fly pretty close to the actual Gazelle?

I almost hate to do this, buuuut.........explain this please??!!!??

So basically what you are saying is that there is nothing wrong with the flight model and that it does fly pretty close to the actual Gazelle?

 

 

 

I almost hate to do this, buuuut.........explain this please??!!!??

 

 

 

I'm not trying to be argumentative, but what about this video is not believable? I am new to DCS helos and only just purchased this helo so I am still learning. But having an aviation background, have you ever seen the Blue Eagles? They do a tail slide in the gazelle. In a Lynx they also do a loop that spends a few seconds inverted before flipping back around. That helo almost immediately arrests its downward sink once its nose is level and right side up.

Is it possible that in a table based flight sim (and I think this is DCS? I think the only fluid based flight sim is XP right now?) that the flight envelope that is programmed to perform accurately as the helo would in real life is based upon the normal envelope that a pilot would take the helo through in real life? There isn't a whole lot of data easily accessible to folks outside of this envelope, so building a table for non normal envelope might be very difficult.

Basically my point... if you want the most accurate flight experience in a simulator, you need to be flying a simulator that simulates fluid (how the fluid moves over a surface to create lift, etc.) You can argue how table based sims like fsx and p3d have super realistic flight models (and I love a2a... I own all of their GA models, and the 182 flies damn near exactly like the 182 that I have many hours in) but those flight models are inaccurate the moment they are taken outside of the normal envelope. I think it's a pretty safe assumption that the gazelle isn't very accurate once outside of the normal envelope that the developers programmed for it.

What do you think? What would you recommend to be different?

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

and I think this is DCS?

No, all so-called PFM (professional flight model) modules have computational fluid dynamics FMs, whereas SFM (standard flight model) modules are table-based.

No. What is wrong is you saying basically nothing is wrong and concluding this is what i'm saying.

No, all so-called PFM (professional flight model) modules have computational fluid dynamics FMs, whereas SFM (standard flight model) modules are table-based.

Can you point me to this source? I've built several XP aircraft and would love to see how difficult it might be to port some of my work to DCS.

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/support/faq/505/

That doesn't indicate the PFM uses fluid dynamics. It does indicate that the PFM used a model in a wind tunnel to develop whatever they use to compute their flight model. But from everything I've read, it's computed away from real time and then just referenced in the sim. This would be more analogous to a table based sim.

Does anyone with actual DCS flight model developing have any input?

TJ

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

XP uses blade element theory. So does PFM.

There is no flight model out there that doesn't reference some sort of table, including XP.

Whats going on here then

:pilotfly: who said they can't..... :-)

That doesn't indicate the PFM uses fluid dynamics.

The link I provided states that PFM models use "CFD methods". And CFD is an abbreviation for computational fluid dynamics, is it not?

:pilotfly: who said they can't..... :-)

I confess I am surprised to see this. I actually had a look at some real Gazelle flight displays on Youtube to see if the professionals get it inverted. Didn't see any.

But this picture does not tell us if this is a stable inversion or "just" a short roll. The DCS videos here show Gazelles doing entire approaches while inverted and I doubt that this is possible with a real one.

I confess I am surprised to see this. I actually had a look at some real Gazelle flight displays on Youtube to see if the professionals get it inverted. Didn't see any.

 

But this picture does not tell us if this is a stable inversion or "just" a short roll. The DCS videos here show Gazelles doing entire approaches while inverted and I doubt that this is possible with a real one.

Unless you can get neg AoA and the rotor system can support inverted flight it will be a short flight however the BO 105 could be interesting.

I confess I am surprised to see this. I actually had a look at some real Gazelle flight displays on Youtube to see if the professionals get it inverted. Didn't see any.

 

But this picture does not tell us if this is a stable inversion or "just" a short roll. The DCS videos here show Gazelles doing entire approaches while inverted and I doubt that this is possible with a real one.

Really impressed by the picture mickt014. I have never been able to find this before.

Asset: A "stable" inversion? You are not mistaking RC world with real world right? Because there is nothing like a stable inversion for a helicopter. The only time you'll see one inverted will be during barrel roll.

My better judgment says I should keep my mouth shut here, but I've re-read the OP several times and what I see is a wishy-washy statement that boils down to Borchi saying there is nothing wrong with the flight model.

What I want to see is Borchi acknowledging that the flight model has serious flaws and vowing to fix it.

@Borchi Maybe the FM isn't "all" wrong, but you must admit to the following:

1. The helicopter should not fly level with zero cyclic input and a severely asymmetrical load.

2. Once in VRS (however difficult it might be to get into) the helicopter should not be able to recover by simply increasing collective.

Enjoy Gazelle looping and rolling

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pENfi1DWYkc

@TripRodriguez:

as I stated before, I am waiting for a responce from the french army about some questions raised by us.

I can only ask for patience, as we have to be patient to for the answer from the guys that flythe helicopter on a daily basis.

@borchi 2b I appreciate your direct response sir.

I do not however think that you need the French Army to tell you that the helicopter should not fly level without any cyclic input and a very asymmetrical load. Nor do you need anyone to tell you that once in VRS you should not be able to recover from it by simply pulling up on the collective as the only helicopter in the world capable of that AFAIK is the Sikorsky SkyCrane.

All we ask in the short term is that you acknowledge those things that are clearly wrong so we know the intent to fix them is there. It is all too common for developers to give the dreaded "working as intended" response when things are clearly not.

We want to be convinced that you are truly taking our words to heart, and that you truly do intend to make it right. I know forums are tough when it comes to feedback as there are always far too many ill informed opinions and poorly worded explanations.

What I would suggest is that you establish direct communications with one of the persons who have demonstrated both knowledge and the ability to explain properly the problems which do exist, as well as the things that we "think" aren't right but perhaps actually are correct.

@borchi 2b Per my above suggestion might I recommend you enter into PRIVATE conversation with the following forum members and listen to them with a receptive and open mind.

FragBum

Shagrat

Frusheen

There may be others and I apologize for the exclusions, these three stood out off the top of my mind.

No, please wait for the pilot feedback.

I really don't understand the above, why take word from people that never flown a gazelle while you can have an answer from the guys that fly the exact version that is modeled....

I don't want a module that feels right, I want a module that is right....

No, please wait for the pilot feedback.

 

I really don't understand the above, why take word from people that never flown a gazelle while you can have an answer from the guys that fly the exact version that is modeled....

 

I don't want a module that feels right, I want a module that is right....

There is a big difference between us being told that PolyChop were told by a real Gazelle pilot that in his/her opinion it feels right, and it actually being right.

Beside that, what I'm focusing on here is the stuff that is not a matter of opinion but plain facts and physics. VRS recovery via increasing collective is not a matter of opinion, and neither is the helicopter staying level with neutral cyclic when there are two missiles on one side and none on the other.

No, please wait for the pilot feedback.

 

I really don't understand the above, why take word from people that never flown a gazelle while you can have an answer from the guys that fly the exact version that is modeled....

 

I don't want a module that feels right, I want a module that is right....

I don't get this thread.

I've shown: Fully controlled, sustained inverted flight.

Fwd and backward continuous rolls with up to 3.6 negative G.

Rotating, hands off stick and pedal, T/O and landing.

125 kph, hands off stick and pedal , landing.

118 kts sustained level flight, with stick pedals and trim centred, AP off, hands free.

And still you want a pilot to tell you whether it can be done or not. :helpsmilie:

..

I don't get this thread.

 

I've shown: Fully controlled, sustained inverted flight.

 

Fwd and backward continuous rolls with up to 3.6 negative G.

 

Rotating, hands off stick and pedal, T/O and landing.

 

125 kph, hands off stick and pedal , landing.

 

118 kts sustained level flight, with stick pedals and trim centred, AP off, hands free.

 

And still you want a pilot to tell you whether it can be done or not. :helpsmilie:

 

..

Thank you Holbeach. I think the problem is people who haven't been paying attention are commenting. This list is exactly what we needed.