Jump to content

Will there ever be a SA342sim?


Recommended Posts

His picture shows exactly the problem that simulator has as challenge.

1:1 stick movement in reality is not same thing as input vice because length of the input device.

Moving a 20 cm stick is not same thing as moving 45 cm stick because same movement amount causes different input to helicopter.

 

Majority of the DCS owners do not own 40 cm extended joystick, but table top joystick without any extension. So they suffer from control issues as they need to perform extremely small joystick movements compared to users who has extended joystick, and what requires much larger movements for same input.

But I think the approach of taking the values for a real 1:1 joystick is good. Since the user will always have curves to set up his table top stick, but also those ones who want to do a full canopy can do it too.

Chinook lover - Rober -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 162
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

His picture shows exactly the problem that simulator has as challenge.

1:1 stick movement in reality is not same thing as input vice because length of the input device.

Moving a 20 cm stick is not same thing as moving 45 cm stick because same movement amount causes different input to helicopter.

 

Majority of the DCS owners do not own 40 cm extended joystick, but table top joystick without any extension. So they suffer from control issues as they need to perform extremely small joystick movements compared to users who has extended joystick, and what requires much larger movements for same input.

 

Exactly either get better input devices or use curves to compensate, I thought sim meant simulate real world not pretend, just saying. I can't see those that a right into the motor sport sims looking for an xbox steering wheel and pedals as "proper" input controls okay for a bit of a laugh just look at the effort they got to.

 

Then there are the DCS simpit builders I'm pretty sure they don't want a $20 joystick to be the reference input device. :music_whistling:

Control is an illusion which usually shatters at the least expected moment.

Gazelle Mini-gun version is endorphins with rotors. See above.

 

Currently rolling with a Asus Z390 Prime, 9600K, 32GB RAM, SSD, 2080Ti and Windows 10Pro, Rift CV1. bu0836x and Scratch Built Pedals, Collective and Cyclic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His picture shows exactly the problem that simulator has as challenge.

1:1 stick movement in reality is not same thing as input vice because length of the input device.

Moving a 20 cm stick is not same thing as moving 45 cm stick because same movement amount causes different input to helicopter.

 

Majority of the DCS owners do not own 40 cm extended joystick, but table top joystick without any extension. So they suffer from control issues as they need to perform extremely small joystick movements compared to users who has extended joystick, and what requires much larger movements for same input.

 

Not ture, the ginbal at the buttom of your device will stay the same. The only change is the precision of the conttrolling device, you as a pilot.

 

We have had one of our lead testpilots test the KW fm with a puma device and a warthog. both have the same values on the input gimbals, so the same values are generates as input. the difference is, and i could see it first hand, that an extension makes it easier to make minimal correections. the difference was clearly visible in the hover, akthough to be fair, the pilot was already stable as hell with a warthog.

 

But dicussing this out would blow the the topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I think the approach of taking the values for a real 1:1 joystick is good. Since the user will always have curves to set up his table top stick, but also those ones who want to do a full canopy can do it too.

 

You cant use curves with helicopter inputs as you must have 1:1 ratio all the time.

 

The center of gravity point shifts trough time based weight distribution, why you can have passenger etc shifting positions inside as you change flight character.

 

The center of gravity can even exist couple meters outside the fuselage in light helicopters, why you might end to situation that you don't have authority in cyclic for safe maneuvering as you can run out of it in gust, sudden weight chance etc.

 

This simply means, table top joystick users will be always underdogs compared to those who have extended joystick. No ways around it.

 

And the helicopter middle should be designed a real cyclic length in mind for the joystick use. So 1:1 without curves and other artificial assistances.

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

Not ture, the ginbal at the buttom of your device will stay the same. The only change is the precision of the conttrolling device, you as a pilot. [/Quote]

 

That is exactly what the picture shows. Look carefully it.

 

both have the same values on the input gimbals, so the same values are generates as input. the difference is, and i could see it first hand, that an extension makes it easier to make minimal correections.

 

Again, exactly what the picture validates....

 

Same physical movement causes different input = for the same input one needs to perform different movement.

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

You cant use curves with helicopter inputs as you must have 1:1 ratio all the time.

 

The center of gravity point shifts trough time based weight distribution, why you can have passenger etc shifting positions inside as you change flight character.

 

The center of gravity can even exist couple meters outside the fuselage in light helicopters, why you might end to situation that you don't have authority in cyclic for safe maneuvering as you can run out of it in gust, sudden weight chance etc.

 

This simply means, table top joystick users will be always underdogs compared to those who have extended joystick. No ways around it.

 

And the helicopter middle should be designed a real cyclic length in mind for the joystick use. So 1:1 without curves and other artificial assistances.

I do play without curves (& without trim), what I meant is, if they have problem controlling it, they can use curves if they want. But I don't like the idea of designing the inputs thinking on "Tabletop joysticks". And btw, just changing the warthog joystick from a side, to in between my legs, changed a lot my flying, It's a good tip for that people without extensions.

Chinook lover - Rober -

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, after years we are finally closer to the problem...

 

@Borchi First of all, most important!!!

 

I WILL NEVER LEAVE A MP SESSION TO SWITCH FFB OFF, TO ENTER THE SAME MP SESSION AGAIN TO BE ABLE TO FLY THE GAZELLE AND THEN LEAVE THE MP SESSION TO SWITCH FFB ON AGAIN TO FLY OTHER MODULES AFTER LOGGING INTO THE SAME MP SESSION AGAIN.

 

Support FFB properly in DCS or do not publish a module for money. 30 modules have no problem with FFB, yours is the only one.

 

 

2. Check the graph below, this is what you are doing with our hall sensor driven joysticks, degrading their excellent X/Y signal resolution to a fraction of only 10% around the center. This will never work in a sim for PC. No other module in DCS needs tempering with curves on my setup, i always fly with linear inputs and it works pretty well for all modules except yours (i have them all).

 

3. Every other helicopter module does this "input conversion" very well. And they support FFB on such a fantastic level that makes helicopter flying so special in DCS.

InputResolution.thumb.jpg.42c5f9ad64b84eb7ff3fb1db90328f03.jpg


Edited by Alec Delorean

i9 13900K @5.5GHz, Z790 Gigabyte Aorus Master, RTX4090 Waterforce, 64 GB DDR5 @5600, Pico 4, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with Rhino FFB base made by VPforce, DCS: all modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And additionally, now that we know that you only fly with an extended stick... That is one major missconception, programmers with blinders, thinking their module is the only one in DCS.

 

My picture shows the major flaw in your controls concept, a "normal" stick has only 1 mm for fine control where an extended stick has 10 mm for the same amount of gimbal movement.

i9 13900K @5.5GHz, Z790 Gigabyte Aorus Master, RTX4090 Waterforce, 64 GB DDR5 @5600, Pico 4, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with Rhino FFB base made by VPforce, DCS: all modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are three main issues/considerations with anything simulator:

 

* Control hardware (most people use standard "home" joystick type controllers)

* Control simulation (how much hardware input = simulated control surface deflection)

* Flight model (what happens as the result of the virtual flight control surface deflection)

 

I fly "stick" aircraft IRL, and already I know the differences/limitations between real and simulated fixed-wing flying. To say the simulated version is realistic is also to avoid the topic, BUT it is easier to get the control feel vs. a something far more dynamic, like helicopters.

 

I've never flown a real helicopter, but I know quite a bit about real helicopter physics and control characteristics (it is my intention to get some real helicopter time when finances allow).

 

This is where the Polychop flight model completely falls apart.

 

Allowing for the limitations of the home controller device, if you ignore what you must do with your hand to get a specific input, when you look at what the sim is seeing and how the flight model reacts, it's clearly not right.

 

From the moment you "pick up" the helicopter to establish a hover, something just isn't simulated.

 

My opinion? I don't think the blades are being simulated. I think they are point forces in the vertical axis (main rotor) and horizontal (tail rotor).

 

I do not think there is any interaction between the two, and just some basic simulation of the behaviors (e.g. when certain conditions are met, the aircraft will simulate the outcome of RBS by rolling towards the retreating side, but not because the simulated rotor actually stalled and lost lift).

 

Try flying the simulated Gazelle backwards. It tells a lot. The tail should enter the downwash of the main rotor, and become quite ineffective/the helicopter should want to rotate around the main rotor, but instead we just get a bit of buffeting and an otherwise stable flight path.

 

Nearly all conventional helicopters hate flying backwards for this reason.

 

The reason the stick control position moves as the helicopter transitions from hover to forward flight is in part to do with the changing center of pressure. Lift is not equal across the rotor disc in forward flight vs. hover. Consequently the front of the rotor produces more lift than the rear (clean air) and wants to pitch up as the lift vector is ahead of the CoG. This requires more forward cyclic to compensate.

 

None of the above really has anything to do with the controller hardware, and everything to do with physics.

 

I think the Gazelle physics model is extremely simplified.

 

It also explains why it doesn't support FFB - the forces required to drive it are simply not being computed.

 

I'm not buying the Kiowa until the Gazelle has an updated (and correct!) flight model.

 

The fact that in December 2019 they are still wanting data from the real aircraft really makes me think they used a few YT videos to try and develop this aircraft.

 

It is otherwise a solid and very enjoyable aircraft, EXCEPT for its flight model. It flies, and is fun, but it's not "real".

 

The equivalence to flying an RC helicopter is not far off the mark.

 

As for VRS, it's the only reason I don't like flying the Mi-8 (it is far too prone to it), otherwise, it is my favorite (I have the Ka-50 as well).

 

I also tried the Huey during the free month, and that thing feels like the rotor is attached to a big spring and not a mast.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can control Gazelle with finger tips but there is no helicopter juice. It more like controlling robot. I have all the helicopter and have no complains regarding flight model but this doesn't fly like a helicopter. I don't use curves at all on any helicopter and can fly it with out any issues. I have no issues with sensitivity you can over come in one or two days But the FM has no helis Juice (momentum).

 

Excuse my English

Win10, Intel 3rd Gen. Core i7 3.8Ghz, 20GB ram, Nvidia Geforce 1060 6GB Opentrack (Download it from HERE), PS3 Eye, Saitek x52-pro Joystick,

DIY Rudder Pedals,

Google Cardboard with DCS World

English is not my native language

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the FM has no helis Juice (momentum).

 

Excuse my English

 

You are understandable!

 

Interesting you mention momentum. I think recently that all DCS aircraft seem to lack *inertia*. Sure, they seem to behave correctly, but they feel to have no mass.

 

Instead of feeling to be flying an aircraft that weighs 30,000 lbs with 20,000 lbs of thrust, it's like they weigh 3,000 lbs with 2,000 lbs thrust.


Edited by Tiger-II

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With my FFB stick i can "feel" it on the other modules, there are remarkable differences between fully loaded aircraft of any sort or with empty loads and low on fuel.

The Gazelle module doesn't have that, and because of that you can do a lot of bullshit with it. Flying upside down is possible because the collective produces negative thrust if pushed to the floor, flip the gazelle around and it produces lift, exactly like in an RC helicopter with enourmous power against extremely low weight. IRL that's the job of gravity, the main rotor is designed to fight against it not to increase it.

i9 13900K @5.5GHz, Z790 Gigabyte Aorus Master, RTX4090 Waterforce, 64 GB DDR5 @5600, Pico 4, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with Rhino FFB base made by VPforce, DCS: all modules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

flip the gazelle around and it produces lift, exactly like in an RC helicopter with enourmous power against extremely low weight. IRL that's the job of gravity, the main rotor is designed to fight against it not to increase it.

 

I experienced this yesterday with the tail rotor. I found I was quickly accelerating sideways from a hover, and adding pedal just made it worse. I was doing 100 kph before I knew it.

Motorola 68000 | 1 Mb | Debug port

"When performing a forced landing, fly the aircraft as far into the crash as possible." - Bob Hoover.

The JF-17 is not better than the F-16; it's different. It's how you fly that counts.

"An average aircraft with a skilled pilot, will out-perform the superior aircraft with an average pilot."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we have stated multiple times now that the flight model issues will be addressed using a completely new flight model system created for the OH-58D Kiowa Warrior module that will incorporate many of the requested features and fixes, this thread will now be closed.

 

This thread, which was started and remained active with what we think are good intentions of concerned people that all share the same common goal, making sure the fidelity of the Gazelle module gets improved, has become a collection of various subjects, lacks structure and is going around in circles. Rest assured, you have made your point clear and your feedback is noted.

 

We also understand we won’t be able to take away your concerns until we have something to show for it. Keep in mind that the flight model code is one of the biggest and most time consuming parts of coding a module. When you take in to account that creating a module from scratch takes about 3 years, and coding the flight model is roughly a third or more of that development process, you can imagine it is not done in a matter of months.

 

Even though this thread will be closed now for the sake of readability and the reasons stated above, feel free to start new threads on specific topics. We’ll try our best to answer any questions you have or address any issues you find. But keep in mind, the flight model will be changed for the better.

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...