Jump to content

Gazelle Flight Dynamics... Again.


Focha

Recommended Posts

FYou don't need to be a pilot to understand the physics involved in aircraft flight...

 

Understanding physics involved is not the same as being able to develop an verifiable, accurate, professional flight model and then evaluate it.

 

@Harlekwin - I never knew about this Dunning Kruger principle; how enlightening this is. :thumbup:

PC: AMD Ryzen 9 5950X | MSI Suprim GeForce 3090 TI | ASUS Prime X570-P | 128GB DDR4 3600 RAM | 2TB Samsung 870 EVO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit

Gear: HP Reverb G2 | JetPad FSE | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.III w/ MCG Ultimate

 

VKBNA_LOGO_SM.png

VKBcontrollers.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 249
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

One thing is for sure.

 

The real Gazelle has a unique flight model that can't be compared with the Huey. :smartass:

 

I also asked a french army pilot about the collective behavior in forwarding flight which is very unusual and get the same answer. It is as correct as a simulator can be.

 

So I am a commercial pilot, but never flown a Gazell in real life, and even if I find the flight module unusual and in some cases extreme, I have no reason to doubt it in his core.

 

The only thing I can't believe in DCS is, the Gazell seems to overcome the inertness of his mass. This leads to unbelievable und impossible maneuvers by very aggressive control inputs and to very abrupt reactions during hover to even the smallest inputs. :joystick:

Always happy landings ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Demonstrating flying the machine inverted, or without a cyclic, had no effect on the argument.

..

 

Funny thing is, with the current "if you're not a military pilot of that exact model your argument is moot" going on we'd might as well argue that if you're not that AND have flown inverted you have no reason to doubt it. :doh:

 

My viggen flew just fine after losing a wing the other day, but hey, what do I know.

 

Edit: Nothing personal, I just meant in general.


Edited by Sephyrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flight model

 

I have to say that in my opinion the flight model is pretty good, the in game controls axis settings benefit from some serious tweaking thought to tame the beast. I'd advise getting the joystick between the knees if at all possible, that's where it is in the real aircraft after all. I've set my axis fine tune to 50% in the Y axis for roll and 80% for pitch., that seems to be more of a representation of the real control reactions when using a short throw joystick rather than a real floor mounted cyclic.

 

My experience in the real gazelle is limited to less than a thousand hours so I'm no expert and that was a lot of years ago! I moved on to Lynx which was child's play to handle compared to the gazelle. The gazelle was a real feel aircraft, ie......you think about changing direction and it's done, real on the edge handling, often described as balancing a bowling ball on a golf ball.....always trying to fall off in one direction or another.

 

For those new to rotary aircraft please bear in mind that students in the real aircraft are introduced to the three controls one at a time, then using two at a time, with an instructor ready to catch it when it falls. After a couple of hours your using all three controls trying to maintain a hover in a 'hover square' measuring 30m. First solo would be after 8 hours of take off....hover....fly the circuit. .....approach. ....hover and land. So don't be too hard on yourself or the developers if it takes time to master.

 

We had a saying in the British Army, .....After 50 hours you think you'll never know it all.....After 500 hours you think you know it all....and after 5000 hours you KNOW you'll never know it all!

 

Happy flying

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?

 

 

 

Yes, it is.

 

 

Helicopter aerodynamics are insanely complicated. For one thing, the machine isn't grounded or "on rails" in any way like you could (sort of, minus wind, etc.) say about a fixed wing craft moving at high speed.

 

 

I've even heard that due to some gyroscopic effect I don't understand, the rotor head wants to fly something like 45degrees off heading, so this effect has to be compensated for in the hub design.

 

 

It's amazing to me that they can model autorotation...just look up a flight training manual on that subject.

 

 

Until we can have flight models based on fluid dynamics (i.e. just model the aircraft body surfaces and mass distribution as in real life, and let it fly based on calculated interactions with modeled air particles, gravity constants, inertia calcs, etc.), the Huey flight model is as good as we can expect in my opinion. I think its fun as hell myself.

 

 

Don't forget to look up Dunning Krueger...It explains a great deal of the modern world.music_whistling.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If i used comparaison with cars backward on the thread it's not for nothing.The gazelle had have a lot of modifications before become an attack helicopter,around 175.

Between the sa 341 and the sa 342 there are same differences that between the cars mentionned on my previous post.Main rotor is not the same and engine is more powerful.Without speaking about the cellule with lot of renforcements.

Thus the weight is different.

if you think that is not sufficient to make the flight different you are wrong.I did piloting the two and she doesn't fly the same.The module in the game is pretty good and in fact ,as "Oldahpilot"said ,she fly like a real aircraft.

 

Now we have to wonder what model of gazelle is in discussion.The module of game is SA342 M

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/equipements/materiels-specifiques/alat/combat/gazelle-viviane-sa-342-m1

Take an attentive look of the differences between models.

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/equipements/materiels-specifiques/alat/combat


Edited by cromhunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've even heard that due to some gyroscopic effect I don't understand, the rotor head wants to fly something like 45degrees off heading, so this effect has to be compensated for in the hub design.

 

Justin has a good basics about helicopters physics:

 

 

There are lots of good videos about the helicopters to start learning the basics:

 

 

I have somewhere as well a nice 120+ hours series of the basic helicopter rotor hub and blade design lecture, where the basics are gone through thoroughly.

 

It is not an easy topic, at all. But the pilots are not going ever learn the stuff that the aerospace engineers will learn in universities when they are studying helicopter building...

 

Over the years pilots will learn many of the things, but they are just gasping the surface of the engineering for helicopters. The long term test pilots will start to learn these things as they will spend lot of time among the engineers talking to those pilots the small details and changes they are doing.

 

Basically saying, if you change anything in the helicopter, be it a blade design, length, weight, counter-rotating rotor parts etc, or the fuselage, you are required to recheck and redesign everything in the helicopter. They go from the cockpit sizes, weights, positions etc.

 

So if you want to do just small change, you might be looking months if not years work to redo lots of things.

i7-8700k, 32GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 2x 2080S SLI 8GB, Oculus Rift S.

i7-8700k, 16GB 2666Mhz DDR4, 1080Ti 11GB, 27" 4K, 65" HDR 4K.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understanding physics involved is not the same as being able to develop an verifiable, accurate, professional flight model and then evaluate it.

 

@Harlekwin - I never knew about this Dunning Kruger principle; how enlightening this is. :thumbup:

 

Yeah, it tends to be a bit overstated though. And honestly a related principle is that some smart people in one area tend to overestimate their abilities in other non-related areas. Which is why smart people don't think they are being dumb when they actually are. I.e. engineers commenting on social policy etc (or better yet vice versa).

New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)

Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) :joystick: TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So ultimately the guy who started this thread is right or wrong?

Polychop has admitted that the FM needs a major overhaul. Appeals to experts are fraught with all kinds of biases and ingroup/outgroup signaling, politics, etc.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No one who claims the FM is good will address the basic issues with the cyclic dynamics, on-rails tracking, etc.

 

 

If it wasn't for the fanboys and people with really low standards being so vocal, we might have a decent one by now, who knows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it wasn't for the fanboys and people with really low standards being so vocal, we might have a decent one by now, who knows.

 

Dayum!

 

IMO the FM is terrible and needs an overhaul. The module is useless to me as is.

 

/sigh

i5 4690K, GTX1070, 24GB 1800mhz, HP WMR, Custom FFB helicopter controls.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?

 

Yes, it is. Nevertheless, ka-50, uh-1h and mi-8 exist.

 

Also the reason why there are so few (serious) choppers developments in flight sim

 

And unfortunately polychop is not among them

 

French airforce Pilots feedback has been recieved regularly, since the module came out, all stating it's exactly like the real thing.

 

That's polychop saying so, but that's simply not true. They also stated a lot of other things were true and the facts proved they are not.

 

Fortunately, I'm not bound to buy all available dcs modules and I'd like to keep a quality standard inside my virtual hangar. Polychop is not on par and it does not meet my expectations. If it meets yours, it's your business and you're free to buy whatever you want.


Edited by nessuno0505
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it is. Nevertheless, ka-50, uh-1h and mi-8 exist.

 

And unfortunately polychop is not among them

 

That's polychop saying so, but that's simply not true. They also stated a lot of other things were true and the facts proved they are not.

 

Fortunately, I'm not bound to buy all available dcs modules and I'd like to keep a quality standard inside my virtual hangar. Polychop is not on par and it does not meet my expectations. If it meets yours, it's your business and you're free to buy whatever you want.

 

 

And these are exactly the point of the question. When there insufficient charts only pilots (or whoever understands these things even without being a pilot if the "bug" is big) can tell us if the FM is credible or not, then the problem is not whether it is difficult or not to create an FM for a helicopter but the fact that for modules like helicopters or WW2 aircraft the judgment of those who flew them is important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PC has officially stated that they are working on a new flight model for the Gazelle. So patience is king i reckon.

 

Well, nothing's happened even after they announced that it would be developed in tandem with the OH-58D, so for all we know it was just a bargaining chip in contract negotiations á la "Let us do this or we wont update or maintain the Gazelle".

 

Talk is cheap, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, nothing's happened even after they announced that it would be developed in tandem with the OH-58D, so for all we know it was just a bargaining chip in contract negotiations á la "Let us do this or we wont update or maintain the Gazelle".

 

Talk is cheap, but I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Bad:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About the flight model update of the Gazelle, it's simply impossible to show progress. It is not about updating some parts and values of the code with an immediate result to show but a complete rewrite of all the code that makes up the flight model. It is the most complex code of a module and has to be done right. We've been clear about this in the past but I will post this again. I'm affraid this is a process that will take its time with very little to show until it is fully implemented. The old and new, way more advanced code are simply incompatible. In the mean time we will be fixing other issues pointed out by the community and release the needed patches.


Edited by Polychop Simulations

Community Manager Account



DrummerNL

[TABLE]

[/TABLE]

Discord - Facebook - Gazelle sitreps

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...