Jump to content

Flight Model Again V2


Focha

Recommended Posts

Oh no Dimitri... Don't poke the bear. The trolls will come out haha

 

I think the biggest problem is understanding what your video illustrates, no I'm not being smart however other than moving the cyclic the external world is difficult to observe in your video.

 

cyclic vs aircraft,

 

:)

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

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

No problem Fragbum! That's why I make an input and then show the attitude indicator so you can see I'm holding 10 degrees of bank with the cyclic in the center position. The video was in response to somebody saying that the helicopter should return to a level attitude when you center cyclic. Something else the video illustrates is how tiny of a movement in the controls it takes to get a response from a helicopter, the point of that is you don't fly a helicopter by thinking about where you are positioning the cyclic you fly it by feel and therefore to me it's irrelevant if Pollychops gazelle does not have an exact one-to-one cyclic position relation to the actual aircraft. I know everyone wants as much realism as possible but the fact is you're not going to learn to actually fly a helicopter on DCs so I think the goal of realism should be for the most realistic feel of flying a helicopter. I personally think the gazelle feels the best out of any Sim I've flown including one at flight safety, the original poster obviously disagrees with me and to be fair it sounds like he is much more experience in similar types of aircraft than I do. My biggest thing is though for a good helicopter experience you need to remove the centering spring or at least find one that's extremely weak.


Edited by Jester986
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I was flying the Astar I was always light as you said and always had the nose up and right skid low. Anyway as to what your talking about with the attitide... I did a ferry flight this morning in a 206L4 and remembered to take some video, which I sent to borchi and he'll post. You'll note that When I put right cyclic in it continues to roll until I neautalize it. It then holds the bank and I have to put left cyclic in to level the ship. True a 206 is not a gazelle but as you said a helicopter is a helicopter... Obviously were not going to agree and it sounds like you have much more experience then I do in Europcopters, my suspicion is though that our difference in opinion come down to our rigs. Do you have an older unused joystick you can remove the centering spring from? That made all the difference in the world in the feel of all the helicopters for me.

 

I will check if has something to do with the FFB. I agree with you... but maybe I am not explain myself in the most correct way.

 

I'll test it later today and check if it is something to do with the FFB being ON.

 

I let you guys know.

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

here is the youtube link to the cyclic behavior Jester986 talked about.

 

 

Thanks for sharing this with me. Happy flying and enjoy the anti fire missions

 

Thank you but that is really hard to see where the cyclic is because the camera is non static. But let me ask you one question Jester986, when you are hovering with you 206L4, do you have your cyclic static? Let me answer... No. You will always make inputs to maintain hover, either because of atmospheric (relative wind) or PIO to maintain the position of the hover.

 

Now, lets go back to DCS Gazelle... I lift the collective and the helicopter flies up with a little bank angle (roll-yaw coupling I assume) which I correct. I now take my hands off the cyclic and the helicopter remains stable... assuming we have a perfect still atmosphere in DCS, will assume this is what should occur...

 

Ok... then I input a little side cyclic to a 10 degree bank angle... I let the cyclic neutral... the helicopter just maintains the 10° bank and stays there... perfectly static with a sideways constant velocity... For those that knows about helicopter's dynamics and I am sure you do Jester986, can you tell me if this is the behavior you would expect? No... because as soon as you let your cyclic in neutral... the helicopter fuselage and the aerodynamics effect on the blades (relative wind), changes. The helicopter is statically stable in hover and if no input is made, with time it will become dynamically unstable. The tendency when you neutral the cyclic, it will be to go in the opposite direction (translation).

 

But go ahead and correct me if I am wrong.

 

The same goes for translation from hover to forward flight... I have Gazelle in a hover and input forward cyclic to 10° nose down. I then return cyclic to neutral. The Gazelle starts to get airspeed but maintains the 10° nose down without any input... it will only require a bit of pedal input to maintain heading. It gained some altitude, then some speed and when speed was about 90 to 100 kmh started to descend again... Attitude? Remained 10°!

 

Jester986, is that what you encountered in your ferry flight? No.

 

Because, when you go from hover to forward flight there is a whole lot to do in the cyclic to compensate for various effects. But even if that was not modeled, at least some blowback should be present which would affect pitch (disk pitch then fuselage pitch). That does not seem to be present.

 

Again, correct me if I am wrong.

 

From my RL experience, specially with the B3 which have a lot of power available, when you go from hover to forward flight and beginning feeling ETL effects, you have to really adjust cyclic and anti-torque. As far as I remember, and if I remember correctly, you would put the cyclic more to the left and forward to maintain pitch attitude... which I don't see modeled in the Gazelle.

 

Also, it is strange that when I input aft cyclic for a fraction of a second and get to neutral again, the helicopter starts to pitch up gradually and then stops at 0°, no matter speeds or attitudes.

 

Do you guys have this effects? Am I the only one to see the Gazelle as I am describing it?

 

I will upload the videos of the cases I am describing here, they were filmed with an iPhone but I think you will understand the behavior.

 

Now... I can't disable FFB because I am flying with a Microsoft FFB 2... and if I turn off FFB I lose the spring tension.

 

Thank you for you patience and I am sorry if I am the only one to experience your Gazelle this way.


Edited by Focha
Spelling

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem Fragbum! That's why I make an input and then show the attitude indicator so you can see I'm holding 10 degrees of bank with the cyclic in the center position. The video was in response to somebody saying that the helicopter should return to a level attitude when you center cyclic. Something else the video illustrates is how tiny of a movement in the controls it takes to get a response from a helicopter, the point of that is you don't fly a helicopter by thinking about where you are positioning the cyclic you fly it by feel and therefore to me it's irrelevant if Pollychops gazelle does not have an exact one-to-one cyclic position relation to the actual aircraft. I know everyone wants as much realism as possible but the fact is you're not going to learn to actually fly a helicopter on DCs so I think the goal of realism should be for the most realistic feel of flying a helicopter. I personally think the gazelle feels the best out of any Sim I've flown including one at flight safety, the original poster obviously disagrees with me and to be fair it sounds like he is much more experience in similar types of aircraft than I do. My biggest thing is though for a good helicopter experience you need to remove the centering spring or at least find one that's extremely weak.

 

If you ask me if the FM is better than some FSTD I've been to, I will say yes. But still does not feel right in some conditions. It should feel more dynamic... See the above post about the pitch stopping at 0° no matter what.

 

Maybe it's just me, my PC and hardware that makes Gazelle feel this way... I don't know. I can only comment based on my experience and what I am getting in the Gazelle. :(

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because, when you go from hover to forward flight there is a whole lot to do in the cyclic to compensate for various effects. But even if that was not modeled, at least some blowback should be present which would affect pitch (disk pitch then fuselage pitch). That does not seem to be present.

 

This is one of my biggest issues, there is no flapback which IRL you really have to push the cyclic forward because the aircraft wants to lift. I'm training in a Cabri G2 which is no Gazelle, but it is a 3 blade rotor with a fenestron so I'd expect to see some similarities?

 

Here's me the Cabri, with a fixed camera. Pitch forward, set 90% power, and keep the nose down until 50kts, then fly away, and the aircraft wants to fly away!

a8agfZ2bOfs?t=21m29s

 

and in DCS

jQ28fINNpvs

Intel 5820k | Asus X-99A | Crucial 16GB | Powercolor Devil RX580 8GB | Win 10 x64 | Oculus Rift | https://gallery.ksotov.co.uk

Patiently waiting for: DCS: Panavia Tornado, DCS: SA-2 Guideline, DCS: SA-3 Goa, DCS: S-300 Grumble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First thing, I've tried to have a respectful conversation and you're getting a little sarcastic with me. But like I've said, you have some valid points. And one thing that did bug me about the Gazelle was when I could take off and hold a stable hover without touching the cyclic and only making pedal inputs. Anyway I'm tired and don't feel like this is productive. I surrender. Agree to disagree. I've given my opinion. Try it with the ffb off though. I've said it many times, no spring tension helps. And maybe I'm crazy but if you have higher expectations from a video game than an FSTD I'd say you're being unrealistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No problem Fragbum,.

 

Thanks yes I see that now, I tend to rely on surroundings to get my POV.

 

Yes the small amount of movement of cyclic was an eye opener when I got some stick time in an R44, which is all I can relate to re helicopter flight. However with cyclic input your'e 100% correct about removing the joystick centering although I would (and did) go even further long story short most joystick controllers have a "built in" dead spot.

 

Here is a thread about what I found with a joystick controller

 

TBH I really don't bother with the (absolute) position of the cyclic rather more a case of I put the cyclic to where I need it to give the result I expect. However I do note that in the Gazelle the cyclic is centered and that is likely the way the input has been modelled. I don't know.

 

@kam

Yes doing circuits in R44 and as you gain forward speed you certainly have to push forward on cyclic to maintain climb rate as the nose wants to come up I was blown away the first time.

 

@Focha

I am interested in FFB however I understand it's implementation may not be 100% I have an improvised cyclic and collective with the cyclic having no centering and just a small amount of resistance to movement both the cyclic and collective were fairly cheap to make.

 

Here 's my setup a WIP :D

 

 

One last thing for everybody I would really appreciate a robust and respectful discussion as I might actually learn from it. :thumbup:

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

This is one of my biggest issues, there is no flapback which IRL you really have to push the cyclic forward because the aircraft wants to lift. I'm training in a Cabri G2 which is no Gazelle, but it is a 3 blade rotor with a fenestron so I'd expect to see some similarities?

 

Here's me the Cabri, with a fixed camera. Pitch forward, set 90% power, and keep the nose down until 50kts, then fly away, and the aircraft wants to fly away!

a8agfZ2bOfs?t=21m29s

 

and in DCS

jQ28fINNpvs

 

 

Hi Kam,

 

you had your nose down in the Gazelle nearly 20°. In your Cabri you never did similar. When you fly the same way in your Cabri you will exceed safe flight the same way and break it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Kam,

 

you had your nose down in the Gazelle nearly 20°. In your Cabri you never did similar. When you fly the same way in your Cabri you will exceed safe flight the same way and break it.

 

In that DCS video I ended up being nose down 20deg because I'm anticipating the aircraft pitching up (flapback) which doesn't happen. You can run this test with 5,10,15,20 degrees - the outcome is the same. I just chose to upload that video.

 

In the video below, you can see what the Cabri WANTS to do after gaining enough forward momentum and without correcting for it by applying forward cyclic. This is what I'm missing in the gazelle, unless it's exempt from this phenomenon?

yZPBjx9rc44

Intel 5820k | Asus X-99A | Crucial 16GB | Powercolor Devil RX580 8GB | Win 10 x64 | Oculus Rift | https://gallery.ksotov.co.uk

Patiently waiting for: DCS: Panavia Tornado, DCS: SA-2 Guideline, DCS: SA-3 Goa, DCS: S-300 Grumble

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you have an older unused joystick you can remove the centering spring from? That made all the difference in the world in the feel of all the helicopters for me.
+1 :thumbup:

 

Fixed wing pilot here with zero real world rotary experience, so I can't offer any advice, but I concur with this comment. I've been flying various DCS modules, including the Huey, as well as other flight sims and enjoy them all. However, after I removed that giant centering spring from my Warthog stick, every one of them flew so much better, especially the helicopters! I have much more accuracy and precision now.

 

I just recently purchased the Gazelle and I'm starting to learn her. So far, I really enjoy this module!

In VR she is incredible.


Edited by redtail

~Redtail~

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Flight Model Again V2

 

First thing, I've tried to have a respectful conversation and you're getting a little sarcastic with me. But like I've said, you have some valid points. And one thing that did bug me about the Gazelle was when I could take off and hold a stable hover without touching the cyclic and only making pedal inputs. Anyway I'm tired and don't feel like this is productive. I surrender. Agree to disagree. I've given my opinion. Try it with the ffb off though. I've said it many times, no spring tension helps. And maybe I'm crazy but if you have higher expectations from a video game than an FSTD I'd say you're being unrealistic.

 

First thing, I've tried to have a respectful conversation and you're getting a little sarcastic with me. But like I've said, you have some valid points. And one thing that did bug me about the Gazelle was when I could take off and hold a stable hover without touching the cyclic and only making pedal inputs. Anyway I'm tired and don't feel like this is productive. I surrender. Agree to disagree. I've given my opinion. Try it with the ffb off though. I've said it many times, no spring tension helps. And maybe I'm crazy but if you have higher expectations from a video game than an FSTD I'd say you're being unrealistic.

 

Hi Jester986, sorry if it felt that way, so I apologize if I was getting sarcastic. Not my intention.

 

No, I do not have higher expectations than a FSTD... and quite frankly I started to feel like you, tired of saying all the things I don't feel right vs my RL experience vs other simulations.

 

I understand it is a simulation. I am just trying to give my feedback to developers of what I consider that should be different.

 

It is up to the developers to determine if they can push it or not.

 

Also, I understand that each hardware is different (for example, I don't have spring tensions and if I disable FFB I don't have force in the joystick, it just wobbles freely) and that can produce different feelings to the user.

 

What I cannot understand is that I see effects and dynamics on other modules so I my expectations are that the Gazelle will also display those general dynamics of helicopters... which in some cases it does not.

 

But again, that might have something to do with the fact that hardware is different.

 

I want to express my apologizes to Jester986 and thank him for his opinion.

 

Without more, I just want to give you a report of what I have found.

 

After further analysing your Flight Model (FM) I’ve conclude that the main problem is something related to Force Feedback (FFB) and how it is modelled and also some FM issues.

 

I don’t know how you coded FFB on the Gazelle module, but for some reason it interferes with the FM.

 

I have run a few tests with and without FFB enabled, and in the last case I have used “FFBsim” program to have a force enabled.

 

I could not extensively test your module, I don’t have any knowledge in the weapons or target acquisition systems. I’ve just tested some very basic flight dynamics that all conventional helicopters should demonstrate.

 

Definitions:

-AFCS to refer to Gazelle module autopilot + servos;

-Joystick refers to Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 Joystick;

-Without FFB refers to the setting off in DCS but with FFBsim running.

-D, rotor diameter.

 

In all cases there was ISA (MSL: 15+ºC 1013 hPa) and no wind.

 

Cases:

 

-A: With FFB and without AFCS.

 

-B: With FFB and with AFCS.

 

-C: Without FFB and with FFBsim and without AFCS.

 

-D: Without FFB and with FFBsim and with AFCS

 

 

For Case 1x, flight conditions were level flight, altitude 2000 feet and speed around 150 kmph.

 

Case 1A:

Started a gentle nose dive with the joystick to 10° nose down pitch. After I returned the joystick to centre and helicopter maintained 10° with cyclic centred. Then I quickly tap the joystick back and returned it immediately to centre, to produce a quick input. The helicopter attitude started to pitch up and then stopped at 0° pitch.

 

I run a few more tests with those conditions as well as pitch up. The attitude always stopped at 0° pitch. As soon as pitch angle was 0 the pitch rate went 0 too.

 

Case 1B:

Same as Case 1A.

 

Case 1C:

The same behaviour was present, except that the helicopter felt more dynamic and less stiff/rigid. For example, the attitude did not stop at 0° pitch. It moved up a bit or down, estimating a 0°+/-0.5°.

 

Case 1D:

The same as Case 1C.

 

For case 2x, flight conditions were initially hover then transition to forward flight.

 

Case 2A:

Joystick was push gently forward to obtain 10° pitch attitude, then joystick to centre. Helicopter maintained 10° pitch all the flight. No change at all present.

There was no change of dynamics at or near ETL airspeed. At least not noticeable in the Gazelle attitude. Helicopter just continued with the same attitude and only changing altitude.

In this case some anti-torque pedal input was necessary only to maintain direction.

 

Case 2B:

The same as case 2A.

 

Case 2C:

The same as case 2A and 2B.

 

Case 2D:

The helicopter attitude was more dynamic. There were differences in the pitch angle. Pitch was not static at 10° and decrease between a value of 7-5°.

Generally, it felt more dynamic in this case but again without showing any signs of difference when ETL airspeed was achieved.

 

For case 3x, flight conditions were initially hover 1/2 D then 10° roll right attitude. Gently move joystick to achieve 10° roll right then centre the joystick. The only commands were collective and anti-torque pedals to maintained height and direction.

 

Case 3A:

The helicopter maintained always 10° statically. No differences were noticeable with the different sideways airspeed or dynamics through blades.

 

Case 3B:

Same as 3A.

 

Case 3C:

Same as 3A but a bit more fluid and less stiff.

 

Case 3D:

The helicopter initially maintained the 10° and then returned to a near 0° roll attitude.

In this case 3, case 3D is what I would except from a helicopter. Even if it has Stability Augmentation Systems (SAS), when you move helicopter sideways, you must always have a bit of cyclic to the place you want to go.

In this case, it is expectable to maintain you cyclic a bit to the right, to keep the 10° roll attitude, because the helicopter will want to counter it and roll to the left.

So, I was happy to see that finally case 3D gave me some resemblance of what I would expect to have but unfortunately, I could not see that in case 3A, 3B and 3C.

 

Case 4x, flight conditions were, hover at 5000 feet and then gently joystick forward until 90° pitch down attitude.

 

Case 4A:

Full joystick forward and attitude will stop at 45° pitch down.

 

Case 4B:

Same as case 4A.

 

Case 4C:

Here the behaviour was different, it didn’t have that stop wall at 45° pitch and you could move to further than 45° and achieve ~80° or more with the eventuality of reaching the VNE and started to roll left.

 

Case 4D:

Same as case 4A.

 

Conclusions:

 

Case 1:

The helicopter seems to have a tendency to be fuselage pitch driven, which can probably be related to the Gazelle’s rigid system although I would expect to have attitude differences with the increasing speed. Also, the stoppage at 0° pitch attitude does not seems right… the helicopters don’t magically stop at 0° pith attitude, although they have the tendency. But again, I was expecting to have cyclic input to maintain a constant pitch attitude through the different airspeeds achieved. Case 1D was much dynamic, which felt more right.

 

Case 2:

I was expecting different cyclic positions due to different dynamics of forward flight. I didn’t get any of that. You should have to get the cyclic forward to compensate the different effect on the disc (for example blowback, etc).

It is like that you never have to use trim in the Gazelle, because you always make inputs to maintain attitude rather than maintain attitude with input.

Flying the Gazelle right now, input cyclic achieve attitude, then neutral… and the helicopter just stays there.

Anyway, just was expecting a little more dynamic behaviour, witch in the case 2D it is a bit more dynamic.

 

In real helicopter, in a take-off, you must really adjust the cyclic position. And I am not talking about the tiny amounts you experience at hover. In the AS350 B3, the transition when you get effective translational lift (ETL) is a bit rough, the helicopter just bounces a bit during that transition until it settles in “new” air, especially at hot and loaded conditions and you have to really push the cyclic forward and to the left, if I remember correctly. In the AS365 N1, sometimes I force trimmed during ETL, since it was easier to fly it through.

 

Case 3:

Case 3, I was expecting that when I put the joystick to neutral, the helicopter tended to stop roll and to be statically stable and after a few oscillations, dynamically unstable.

In real life, you always must maintain a bit of cyclic in the direction you want to translate. I could see this behaviour only in case 3D.

 

Case 4:

Probably the 45° push down limit has something to do with AFCS, although it also showed the same limit with AFCS OFF. With case 4D though, I could pitch down to more than 40~45° pitch.

One thing that I found interesting is that the effects of exceedance of VNE should be a pitch up and roll to retreating side of the disc, in the Gazelle I don’t get, and I only get a roll to the retreating side, which the rate aggravates even if you put in practice a recovery.

 

General conclusion:

 

My general conclusion is that there is something weird in the way FFB is simulated. It is like you never need to trim the helicopter.

 

I did not observe ETL effects on the disc (blowback) or expected effects near VNE.

 

It seems that the cyclic is flying the attitude helicopter instead of the rotor disk attitude, but this is a rigid rotor type helicopter and I cannot comment on that.

 

Even so, there are effects that should be present.

 

I found that FFB off and AFCS on reflected more what I am used to have in a RL helicopter and other helicopter simulations.

 

I don’t understand why sometimes feels that the helicopter reaches some limits. For example, when hits the pitch 0° degree "wall". It should continue to rise the nose up, if you just centre the cyclic or let it go. Or when you input a pitch attitude and the helicopter remains with that pitch attitude even if you centred the cyclic/joystick.

 

Those behaviour I don’t understand and if tomorrow I was going to be type rated in a different helicopter from what I have flown, I would not expect that behaviour from it.

 

I really hope I could bring you my review of your state of the art FM and with that, hope you can change somethings or not. It is up to the developer and if you guys think it is ok as it is, I am no one to push you forward.

 

I really hope that developers take a look at how FFB is implemented in the Gazelle module, because right now it just doesn’t feel correct. Please take a look at how DCS Ka-50 or Huey cyclic trim is implemented for FFB, it should me something similar. The cyclic behaviour, for my personal experience is not good as it is.

 

Just feels like you choose an attitude and then you just put the cyclic neutral/joystick centred. Helicopter are not flown like this.

 

The only thing I can give you free of charge, is my experience with my hardware.

 

Thank you.

 

Check video for ETL cyclic inputs and turbulence.


Edited by Focha
Spelling

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To illustrate further more what I am describe above, a set of pictures taken from the video link above:

 

Cyclic position during hover:

ETL_1.jpg

 

 

Cyclic position somewhere during ETL (it was only momentarily but to illustrate the cyclic displacement):

ETL_ETL.jpg

 

Cyclic during cruise:

ETL_2.jpg

 

Camera is fixed.

 

So, in Gazelle, its like you use the first image cyclic position every time... no trim needed. You just use the other position to change the helicopters attitude. Then go back to center again. That is not how helicopter behave.

 

Hope that this way can show one of the things that for me, it makes your module not that great.

 

Kind regards.


Edited by Focha
Links

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Focha, and I was probably just being a grouchy ass myself. I had been on fires and was exhausted. Anyway I don't have my rig to test it but I did some thorough testing before and I thought I remembered there being appropriate power changes between out of ground effect, in ground effect, and etl. But I don't remember there being the cyclic movement for countering blowback and the lateral dip.


Edited by Jester986
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(...)

After further analysing your Flight Model (FM) I’ve conclude that the main problem is something related to Force Feedback (FFB) and how it is modelled and also some FM issues.

 

I don’t know how you coded FFB on the Gazelle module, but for some reason it interferes with the FM.

 

(...)

 

The FFB implementation is utterly broken imho. See also here:

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=196099

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=173762

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214310

 

and then also the Dev's response here (:noexpression:)

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=204984

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focha, thank you very very much.

That was what I was looking for about a year ago.

So no substantional change in the FM. And a broken FFB(thx Flagrum). That makes me really sad:cry:

 

This is such a beautifully modelled Helicopter module, but these flaws break it for me.

 

Sticktravel is typical for every Helicopter. And no SAS cancels this out.

 

 

Here is an example for sticktravel in a AS350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After searching youtube for some time, I finally found two videos of a user named Haelo Global. I edited these videos for quick comparison. There you can see, what Focha and some others tried to say to Polychop. A Gazelle does not differ in general flight dynamics from any other conventional helicopter. And the construction of the rotorblades can not overcome this phenomenon, as it is a fundamental part of helicopter dynamics. Altough the angle from the camera to the stick is shallow, one can clearly see that the Gazelle has this typical stick travel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think noone asked for a millimeter exact representation of stick travel. But the lack of stick travel at all, shows huge gaps of general helicopter flight dynamics in this FM. And a 0° pitch stop, a 45° pitch limit, I won´t comment on that other than :shocking:

 

Do not think the other DCS Helicopters were perfect from the beginning or are perfect right now. They are not. But their flaws were/are less obvious.

 

Fox

 

p.s. The Gazelle has no rigid/bearingless rotor system. It was supposed to get one, but it didn´t. It is a classic fully articulated rotorhead. But this bearingless "thing" is wrong since the presentation of Polychops´s Gazelle.

 

 

 

p.p.s. Sven, wir können uns auch gerne auf deutsch per PM oder im deutschen Bereich des Forums darüber unterhalten, um Übersetzungsmissverständnisse zu vermeiden. Hier geht es nicht ums bashen oder haten. Hier sind ein paar RL Piloten, die euch klar machen wollen, dass das nicht korrekt sein kann, wie eure Gazelle fliegt.


Edited by iFoxRomeo
name
Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Focha, thank you very very much.

That was what I was looking for about a year ago.

So no substantional change in the FM. And a broken FFB(thx Flagrum). That makes me really sad:cry:

 

This is such a beautifully modelled Helicopter module, but these flaws break it for me.

 

Sticktravel is typical for every Helicopter. And no SAS cancels this out.

 

 

Here is an example for sticktravel in a AS350

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After searching youtube for some time, I finally found two videos of a user named Haelo Global. I edited these videos for quick comparison. There you can see, what Focha and some others tried to say to Polychop. A Gazelle does not differ in general flight dynamics from any other conventional helicopter. And the construction of the rotorblades can not overcome this phenomenon, as it is a fundamental part of helicopter dynamics. Altough the angle from the camera to the stick is shallow, one can clearly see that the Gazelle has this typical stick travel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think noone asked for a millimeter exact representation of stick travel. But the lack of stick travel at all, shows huge gaps of general helicopter flight dynamics in this FM. And a 0° pitch stop, a 45° pitch limit, I won´t comment on that other than :shocking:

 

Do not think the other DCS Helicopters were perfect from the beginning or are perfect right now. They are not. But their flaws were/are less obvious.

 

Fox

 

p.s. The Gazelle has no rigid/bearingless rotor system. It was supposed to get one, but it didn´t. It is a classic fully articulated rotorhead. But this bearingless "thing" is wrong since the presentation of Polychops´s Gazelle.

 

 

 

p.p.s. Sven, wir können uns auch gerne auf deutsch per PM oder im deutschen Bereich des Forums darüber unterhalten, um Übersetzungsmissverständnisse zu vermeiden. Hier geht es nicht ums bashen oder haten. Hier sind ein paar RL Piloten, die euch klar machen wollen, dass das nicht korrekt sein kann, wie eure Gazelle fliegt.

 

 

Hi,

klar kann man sich auch gerne auf deutsch unterhalten, aber es bringt uns wenig wenn wir die Personen nicht kennen und wir deren Hintergrund nicht kennen. Ich mach weiter auf Englisch.

????

 

So about the FM. We do know which areas might have issues and which might not. In your video they use a 341L as far I can see, that has no SAS system. makes a huge difference.

 

I do not want to say that we do not read or understand what people want from us, we do, but as we have stated numerous times before, we prefer to listen to the people that have thier hands on the real controls of the actual french Gazelle 342m version for living, cause they can tell us what it really is like in comparison to the real deal. I have read noumerpus post of people that claim they are real helicoptdr pilots, but non of them has ever spoken even about a unique design feature of the Gazelle and why it can fly hands off at 120kph level, which it can. Dcs in general is a very sterile enviroment compared to tbe real weather that pilots encounter in real life. Most missions are planned without wind or turbulences, which requires the inputs you see in some real life videos.

 

I do not want to defend the DCS Gazelle here or attack opinions represented by pilots or talented simmers, no, I only want to point out that non of the customers even talked about others stuff that we did not represent as it is like in real life, cause it is restricted to some extend, in which case I am referring to the display of the the Viviane or the fuctions it offers in real life. Did anybody, who claims to know what this helicopteris supposed to be like in RL ever mention that the Viviane only has IR view in realtiy and that the symbology is not what it would be like in real life? No. But our french pikots did tell us, who I consider being the experts in the case of the Gazelle. We asked certain questions ourself that were braught up by the community and we recieved answers about it from them and tried to change as much as we could in the Gazelle FM to get as close as possible with the way it was coded.

 

So let me state one thing about FMs. We are working hard with real life pilots and I assure already now, that what ever we come up with next, should also please the real life pilots in this group.

The bonus is, that for future projects we seak to work with the type specific real life pilots from minute 1 at the project start, what ever it may be. This gives a huge advantage to any future project, cause we hear about specifics that a only known by the guys that fly it.

And yes, we listen to all people, but will not be able to please every individual. For example FFB. I was hard or mear impossible to get a good functional FFB stick 2 or 3 years ago. We did at some point, but the first 2 were broken and finally after we found another3rd used stick it finally worked. This is just a little insight about a little obstacle we had to face, but sometimes I feel the expectations of the customers are that it has to be perfect all the time, which is impossible ever.

 

About new stuff, I can and will not post anything until we have signed a contract with ED, which will stay our future policy for DCS related products, regardless what 3D shape you might see on our facebook page. Right now I can only claim that we have the backup of 7 pilots, that have a total of 8500 flighthours, 3000 of them in combat, plus 2600+ people in a closed community that know exactly where we are going and most of them are the professionals we look for as advisors and testers. If these people we allowed to become our test pilots, say something is wrong, we will know that there really something is wrong, plus we will get the detailed descriptions of what it does in x y z condition and why it does so.

 

Ok. I will keep reading your postings about the FM as they come.

cheers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not want to defend the DCS Gazelle here or attack opinions represented by pilots or talented simmers, no, I only want to point out that non of the customers even talked about others stuff that we did not represent as it is like in real life, cause it is restricted to some extend, in which case I am referring to the display of the the Viviane or the fuctions it offers in real life. Did anybody, who claims to know what this helicopteris supposed to be like in RL ever mention that the Viviane only has IR view in realtiy and that the symbology is not what it would be like in real life? No.

 

I don't want to hijack this FM thread, but I sort of asked about the Vivianne sight in this thread:

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=171114

 

The answer I got then was that there are different versions of the sight system. Not that DCS 342M has fantasy symbology and such because it is restricted :huh:

 

One thing that is missing for certain is the optical periscope sight. I find it very strange since it is an integral part of the 342 (aswell as other Gazelle variants).

 

Just a bit confused. Since the Gazelle L and Mistral versions are relying a bit on made up "approx" systems - like gunsight system, Mistral system etc.

 

What is actually real and what is made up in regards of the systems on 342M? :noexpression:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

klar kann man sich auch gerne auf deutsch unterhalten, aber es bringt uns wenig wenn wir die Personen nicht kennen und wir deren Hintergrund nicht kennen. Ich mach weiter auf Englisch.

????

 

 

Mein Hintergrund hat auf diesem Forum nichts verloren. Mein Angebot bezog sich darauf Missverständnisse zu vermeiden. Aber okay.

 

 

So about the FM. We do know which areas might have issues and which might not. In your video they use a 341L as far I can see, that has no SAS system. makes a huge difference.

 

 

I makes a difference in pilot workload, but not in stick travel. In this case the SAS is irrelevant.

 

 

...I have read noumerpus post of people that claim they are real helicoptdr pilots, but non of them has ever spoken even about a unique design feature of the Gazelle and why it can fly hands off at 120kph level, which it can....

 

 

Unique design features? There are probably some. But none of these can possibly explain the behaviour which the PC Gazelle shows. And the Gaz has no fly by wire system. Such a system could be an explanation for such a behaviour, but no FBW system would operate that way.

Flying hands off doesn´t mean the stick won´t travel.

 

 

I do not want to defend the DCS Gazelle here or attack opinions represented by pilots or talented simmers, no, I only want to point out that non of the customers even talked about others stuff that we did not represent as it is like in real life, cause it is restricted to some extend, in which case I am referring to the display of the the Viviane or the fuctions it offers in real life. Did anybody, who claims to know what this helicopteris supposed to be like in RL ever mention that the Viviane only has IR view in realtiy and that the symbology is not what it would be like in real life? No. But our french pikots did tell us, who I consider being the experts in the case of the Gazelle. We asked certain questions ourself that were braught up by the community and we recieved answers about it from them and tried to change as much as we could in the Gazelle FM to get as close as possible with the way it was coded.

 

 

The Viviane or other classified items are not the problem that is discussed here. The people here approach you, as they see that there is a general error in the FM.

 

 

...

 

 

About new stuff, I can and will not post anything until we have signed a contract with ED, which will stay our future policy for DCS related products, regardless what 3D shape you might see on our facebook page. Right now I can only claim that we have the backup of 7 pilots, that have a total of 8500 flighthours, 3000 of them in combat, plus 2600+ people in a closed community that know exactly where we are going and most of them are the professionals we look for as advisors and testers. If these people we allowed to become our test pilots, say something is wrong, we will know that there really something is wrong, plus we will get the detailed descriptions of what it does in x y z condition and why it does so.

 

 

Please, ask every single pilot you know and met personally in your team, what happens with the cyclic stick, when they transition from hover to cruise. Simple thing via email. Ask them if they know what could be meant with "shifting into the 1st/5th gear". And if all of those 7 tell you that when reaching cruise the stick goes back to the position it had during hover, I´ll visit you and buy you a beer, or two. I´m not joking.

But I can give you their answers. The stick won´t be in the same position. And no SAS can compensate this as these systems are not meant to do that.

 

 

 

Ok. I will keep reading your postings about the FM as they come.

cheers.

 

 

Borchi, you have no knowledge about helicopter dynamics. That´s no problem at all. I know nothing about programming or designing a model. And I´m fine with that.

 

 

Please ask those pilots you do know and have met personally. But not how the PC Gazelle feels, but how the real Gazelle flies from hover to cruise.

 

Again, this is not to harm or bash you and PC!!!

 

 

Fox

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your video they use a 341L as far I can see, that has no SAS system. makes a huge difference

 

Unless the French have tapped into some unworldly technology, my understanding is that computers don't affect physics.

 

As stated in other threads before, the Gazelle's behavior is the same with SAS off, it shows me that it's not your SAS programming, but your FM programming.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give OH-6 ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Borchi, you have no knowledge about helicopter dynamics.

 

 

Again, this is not to harm or bash you and PC!!!

 

 

Fox

 

What do you call this stupid product of language instead?

 

 

So listen, I'm seeing that you guys are bashing each other for months. Just for my personal interest. How do you want to implement stick travel for us non ffb pilots? A moving virtual stick but our Joystick doesn't move? If our stick would produce inputs we could not fly hands off which is possible as it was told before.

 

And sorry guys, I suspect at least most of you claiming RL experience have some but not all of you. This is best seen by people who are always hammering on their physics book. This is exactly the same shi** we had with the M2000 FM discussion where FBW rules over the simple schoolbook physics.

 

 

And in the direction of all the RL pilots, I respect your experience but since flying a 727 is not the same as flying an A380 I stay on the side of the Gazelle M pilots. This is not meant as bashing or to harm anybody!


Edited by FSKRipper

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What do you call this stupid product of language instead?

 

 

So listen, I'm seeing that you guys are bashing each other for months. Just for my personal interest. How do you want to implement stick travel for us non ffb pilots? A moving virtual stick but our Joystick doesn't move? If our stick would produce inputs we could not fly hands off which is possible as it was told before.

 

And sorry guys, I suspect at least most of you claiming RL experience have some but not all of you. This is best seen by people who are always hammering on their physics book. This is exactly the same shi** we had with the M2000 FM discussion where FBW rules over the simple schoolbook physics.

 

 

And in the direction of all the RL pilots, I respect your experience but since flying a 727 is not the same as flying an A380 I stay on the side of the Gazelle M pilots. This is not meant as bashing or to harm anybody!

I'm sorry for your hard feelings. But look at the other DCS Helicopters, then you will see how one could implement stick travel to non-ffb users. And how is trim realized in fixed wing aircraft in DCS? There are ways to do this, but not the way it is in the Gazelle.

And saying that somebody has no knowledge about something is just a statement. I didn' t say he is stupid or something similar. So calm down. Do not assume things. This is not the M2000 discussion. If I don't not a thing, and there are lots of things I don't know, I ask those who know it. And if there are conflicting statements I compare them and ask the sources again, why one source says a and the other source says b. In this case Polychop doesn't compare the physics, but the feelings.

If a developer claims that his product's FM is in the AFM category, and "rotor lift and drag are calculated in realtime", then the cutomers are allowed to compare it to reality, imho.

And in this case it doesn't fit.

To put things into perspective, before someone says "it's just a game". This software is called Digital Combat Simulator. So a big part of this software is simulation. And just today Eagle Dynamics themselves released a new aircraft where the focus lies on "simulation" where the "combat" part is completely missing.

 

The physics in a 727 and a 380 are the same. The differences are in the details. And so is the situation of the Gazelle to other helicopters.

 

 

Fox

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did anybody, who claims to know what this helicopter is supposed to be like in RL ever mention that the Viviane only has IR view in reality and that the symbology is not what it would be like in real life? No. But our french pikots did tell us, who I consider being the experts in the case of the Gazelle.

Is the Viviane camera ever likely to be modelled realistically i.e. is the current implementation considered WIP ?

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry for your hard feelings. But look at the other DCS Helicopters, then you will see how one could implement stick travel to non-ffb users. And how is trim realized in fixed wing aircraft in DCS? There are ways to do this, but not the way it is in the Gazelle.

And saying that somebody has no knowledge about something is just a statement. I didn' t say he is stupid or something similar. So calm down. Do not assume things. This is not the M2000 discussion. If I don't not a thing, and there are lots of things I don't know, I ask those who know it. And if there are conflicting statements I compare them and ask the sources again, why one source says a and the other source says b. In this case Polychop doesn't compare the physics, but the feelings.

If a developer claims that his product's FM is in the AFM category, and "rotor lift and drag are calculated in realtime", then the cutomers are allowed to compare it to reality, imho.

And in this case it doesn't fit.

To put things into perspective, before someone says "it's just a game". This software is called Digital Combat Simulator. So a big part of this software is simulation. And just today Eagle Dynamics themselves released a new aircraft where the focus lies on "simulation" where the "combat" part is completely missing.

 

The physics in a 727 and a 380 are the same. The differences are in the details. And so is the situation of the Gazelle to other helicopters.

 

 

Fox

 

Oh I'm not offended by such a statement. And if you tell me I have no idea abour helo flight dynamics I'm fine with it. Telling the same the developer is an insult, no matter which language you use since he for sure spent more time coding the FM than you on a real stick. We had a lot of these experts even telling Yoyo that he has no idea of Flight modeling...It's simply a lack of respect and respect is a two sided street.

 

I agree that the physics on a 727 and a A380 are the same, but transition courses are not only there to teach you where the instruments are. You will learn how the plane reacts under given conditions which can vary a lot between different models.

 

I also know that this is also a game and like it was said earlier I'm happy that the FM "feels" fine for real Gaz M pilots than to get a model strictly by the book (maybe like Jester told of the Flight safety sims). Look in the other forums and at least for the UH-1 you will find comments from RL pilots saying it feels too artificial. Funny how people flying different models are happy with it...

 

Just my two cents here. Since this will not be the end of this thread I wanted to thank Polychop for their work. I hope you other guys find some fun with the module at last.


Edited by FSKRipper

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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