Gazelle Flight Dynamics... Again. - Page 23 - ED Forums
 


Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 12-02-2019, 05:46 PM   #221
swatstar98
Member
 
swatstar98's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Spain
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaD CrC View Post
Generally speaking, coding an helicopter FM is an order of magnitude more complex than a fixed wing. Imagine coding one big fix wing versus 2 or 4 (or 6 for the Ka50) rotating ones constantly changing Aoa and flexing. Add to that a propeller that pushes sideway (tail rotor). This adds some interesting consequences: vortex ring state, settling with power, loss of tail rotor effectiveness, dynamic rollover, retreating blade stall, in ground effect, effective transitional lift,... And of course a permanent unstability and 4 controls (cyclic, collective, thrust, rudder) that are intricately correlated. Things that FW pilots don't really need to worry about. Also the reason why there are so few (serious) choppers developments in flight sim. Very complex and people are a bit reluctant to spend weeks just to learn how to hover when you can be a maverick in a few days shooting missiles at migs.

Some explanations of Polychop here:

I corrected your post, the link was between the FB marks and no between YT marks.
__________________
"parts are falling off the french helicopter.. IT IS A MISSILE YOU IMBECILE" - Rober -
swatstar98 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 12:17 AM   #222
BaD CrC
Senior Member
 
BaD CrC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: New Jersey, USA
Posts: 2,642
Default

Thanks!
__________________

8086K delid @5.1Ghz under EKWB Water, 2080Ti FE, 32Gb DDR4, 970Pro NvME.
BaD CrC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 03:18 AM   #223
Harlikwin
Veteran
 
Harlikwin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Living rent free in your mind
Posts: 4,694
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon View Post
Is it so difficult to make a correct flight model for a helicopter?
Um... look up the term dunning kruger bro...
__________________
New hotness: I7 9700k 4.8ghz, 32gb ddr4, 2080ti, TM Warthog. TrackIR, HP Reverb (formermly CV1)
Old-N-busted: i7 4720HQ ~3.5GHZ, +32GB DDR3 + Nvidia GTX980m (4GB VRAM) TM Warthog. TrackIR, Rift CV1 (yes really).
Harlikwin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 04:37 AM   #224
The Falcon
Member
 
The Falcon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: Europe\Italy
Posts: 372
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Harlikwin View Post
Um... look up the term dunning kruger bro...
maybe you're right, in any case i hope the pilots' feedback can help them especially for things like helicopters and ww2 airplanes
The Falcon is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 03:08 PM   #225
Holbeach
Senior Member
 
Holbeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: West Norfolk, England.
Posts: 1,035
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon View Post
maybe you're right, in any case i hope the pilots' feedback can help them especially for things like helicopters and ww2 airplanes

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


Who do you want to believe?


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


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


..
__________________
I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070. 8 gb RAM, 1kw PSU. 12 yo Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. DCS on SSD.. FSX on SSD..
..



Holbeach is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-03-2019, 03:24 PM   #226
rrohde
Veteran
 
rrohde's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Pocari Pocky
Posts: 4,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holbeach View Post
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.
__________________

PC: Intel Core i7-7700K 4.2GHz @ 5.0GHz | MSI GTX 1080 TI | ASUS Maximus IX Hero | 32GB DDR4 RAM | 512GB Samsung 850 PRO SSD | Win10 Pro 64bit | Glear: HP Reverb | Jetseat 908 | Monstertech MTX Sim Rig | VKB Gunfighter Pro Mk.II w/ MCG PRO (center mount) | VKB Gunfighter /w SCG-R Premium (side mount)
rrohde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 09:03 AM   #227
CHPL
Member
 
CHPL's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Germany
Posts: 856
Default

One thing is for sure.

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

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.
__________________
Always happy landings
CHPL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 09:54 AM   #228
Sephyrius
Member
 
Sephyrius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Posts: 242
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holbeach View Post

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.

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.

Last edited by Sephyrius; 12-04-2019 at 10:10 AM.
Sephyrius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 10:33 AM   #229
Oldahpilot
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 5
Default 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
Oldahpilot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2019, 12:47 PM   #230
Scarecrow84
Member
 
Scarecrow84's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 155
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Falcon View Post
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.
Scarecrow84 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Forum Jump

All times are GMT. The time now is 12:31 AM. vBulletin Skin by ForumMonkeys. Powered by vBulletin®.
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.