Jump to content

Flying helicopter in real


Recommended Posts

10 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Only if you have real experience of flight on real helicopters.

thank you.

None but I'm willing to learn/be corrected, my sources include 

 

• Flight Test of the Aerospatiale SA-342 Helicopter, Aug 1975, ADA016921.pdf (contains flight control measurements/charts)

https://ntrl.ntis.gov/NTRL/dashboard/searchResults/titleDetail/ADA016921.xhtml

 

• ALAT pilot feedback

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3929939#post3929939

http://www.checksix-forums.com/viewtopic.php?f=465&t=200331&p=1678174#p1678174

 

It should be noted that PC claimed in the past that even experience in a UK SA-341 wasn't relevant to the SA-342 as it had different/special blades, AFAIK their position on pilot feedback has changed since.

 

WTot3iG.jpg


Edited by Ramsay
Fix diagram terminology - blades flap
  • Like 2

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 32GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

First of all thanks to be a little courageous in posting here ,even if you are not really aware,as a real pilot:)

So what follows could be harsh,and i ask you to consider that it is not against you ,but i have to remind some facts.
1:

Everyone forgets that aeronautics uses aerodynamic laws that depend on aerology. 
It is not by aligning numbers calculs and abstract percentages that we will find 
a solution to the problems of simulators.
The only way to get something right would be to stop mixing everything to confuse 
the players and attract them to this game;
When I was flying planes and helicopters I had nothing to do with the calculations of the engineers and all these figures.
I didn't care about all these complicated stuffs,i was just applying parameters pointed by the flight manual,to avoid a fatal happening. 
I piloted by displaying the parameters required to not crash my body and passengers
I never wondered what percentage of cyclic I had to apply one way or another to stay in flight.
That's the problem between real pilots and simulator players.

2:

Players always asking for particular knowledges about the gazelle and  point something from the game.
In the same time they would like that it would be same in reality.
The worse is that they insist all their assertions like they have an hypothetic experience of real flight.
The question is,do they know what they are talking about?.

I think they DON'T)

 

About difference between sa341 and 342 is :

the powerplant ,the weight  and many other thing more than 170 modifications since the first gazelle.

Rotor blade from squirrel for the sa 342M1.

https://aviationsmilitaires.net/v3/kb/aircraft/show/14369/aerospatiale-sa-342m-gazelle

 

Ok what is the version you would like to talk about among these 170 versions?

Hummm?:)

 

The problem cannot be solved with speculations extracted from observations of somebody else than you.

Now your graphics are not good enough to explain something.

Because the type of rotor blade is not the same .

Do you know what is a rotor starflex?

https://blog.aopa.org/aopa/2011/05/25/starflex-rotor/

And as long you have not experienced the flight of these differents versions,you cannot tell nothing at all,about the stuff.

You know (i hope) that before launching an aircraft there are a bunch of tests to confirm or infirm all theorics.

From those tests certifications may be given and never only with some graphics or calculations and complicated.

 

Thus why all of you players would like that a simple references wiki or else is good enough to explain the helicopter flight? 

 

 


Edited by cromhunt
  • Like 1
  • Confused 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Ok what is the version you would like to talk about among these 170 versions?

Hummm?:)

I would like you to describe how moving the cyclic controlled the main rotor in the version(s) of Gazelle you have *personally* flown i.e. whether it was necessary to center the cyclic during a banked turn, and/or how the Gazelle's cyclic input differed from those of a helicopter with a teetering or fully-articulated rotor head (assuming you have experience of flying the type).

 

You DO NOT need to describe/explain control linkages, the swashplate, etc., rather this is about pilot control input i.e. as measured in ADA016921.pdf

 

2 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Do you know what is a rotor starflex?

Yes, I am aware of the Gazelle's construction, AFAIK the composite "hinge" would be modelled in a FM as a fully-articulated semi-rigid joint to allow the modelled blades to flap/feather like the real aircraft.


Edited by Ramsay
  • Like 2

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 32GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok:) i'm gone to continue answering you as you seems aware of something.Unfortunatly it is something completly theoric.I wonder where you find this stupid assertion that suppose the cyclic doesn't return to neutral after a push or a pull ?

I was pilot on alouette 2 SE 3130 artouste and SA 318 astazou also.

https://cromhunt.proboards.com/thread/160/real-flight
I began to learn piloting helicopter on Se 3130 with compensators,and after on Se 3130 with servos.with the first one the compensator did more easy to maintain of cyclic around a central position.It is the only moments where i was feeling the position of the cyclic.
With the servoscommands i never had to feel the center.
On a gazelle the sas maintain the cyclic to return to neutral.
Thus i don't and didn't wonder where the cyclic is,when i push or pull it.Because while looking outside i know how is my level of flight

Now i have to say,and it could be the last time i do.When you are piloting a real helicopter there is nothing like the stupid red commands indicator. I mean the red stuff with vertical and horizontal lines and the diamond on the center.
This stuff is useless and make you wondering how is work.
It seems that you players are focus on this.And in the sametime you are wondering why commands are not corresponding.

When you learn to fly an aircraft, as well a plane or a helo.You learn to get references while looking out of cockpit,and never be watching your cyclic or stick.Because we must looking outside,and never ever looking the floor of cockpit. If you do that you loose the control.
First reference is the horizon,you are watching your position.
To roll or to climb you use references from the horizon crossing lines on your windshield.
Instead of your dumb references coming out straight from the game that make you loosing your mind,try the real managing of helicopter;with a search on your favorite wiki site you will be able to find some real lessons.

And if you find nothing i'm ready to show you how you have to pilot a helo on my server.
That's all folks


Edited by cromhunt
  • Like 1
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

First rule for helicopter flying is "fly the aircraft" all the time. In flight and during maneuvering, the cyclic is basically never centered (neutral) - you're always moving the stick in an offset area from center. To answer the question about roll, it is a short "No!". And Cromhunt is right, the Gazelle in DCS is a pretty dumb reference, because no real helicopter works like it is depicted in game for the Gazelle module. Since the only real life reference we have here is videos, how about this (fixed 360 camera in cockpit of an Alouette II) you can clearly see how much and how far the stick is moving and how offset never leads to a continuous roll during hover, transitioning to forward flight or in turns:

https://youtu.be/MxyF2Gf0gwA

 


Edited by RealDCSpilot

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

i'm gone to continue answering you as you seems aware of something. Unfortunately it is something completely theoricaI wonder where you find this stupid assertion that suppose the cyclic doesn't return to neutral after a push or a pull ?

ADA016921.pdf, the US measured the SA-342's control positions and sensitivity to compare them in a qualitative and meaningful way with other US helicopters i.e. the 1975 OH-58.

 

9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

With the servoscommands i never had to feel the center.
On a gazelle the sas maintain the cyclic to return to neutral.

The cyclic's neutral position in the real is not a fixed position, being adjustable with magnetic brake (force trim) and fine trim hat. The SAS will maintain the position set by the pilot.

 

9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

When you are piloting a real helicopter there is nothing like the stupid red commands indicator. I mean the red stuff with vertical and horizontal lines and the diamond on the center.
This stuff is useless and make you wondering how is work.

I have to disagree. When discussing why a flight model "feels" wrong, it is useful to be able to see how the simulated control positions  compare to real life.

 

9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

It seems that you players are focus on this. And in the same time you are wondering why commands are not corresponding.

 

We focus on the control positions because they do not correspond to RL measurements and behaviours i.e. from ADA016921.pdf

 

76S0FhO.jpg

 

The measurements in ADA016921.pdf are supported by Damcopter's own observations

 

On 5/30/2019 at 4:02 PM, Damcopter said:

The DCS Gazelle has big problems considering FM.

 

First of all:

A steady cyclic displacement on the right or the left side doesn't correspond to a roll angle of X degrees like it is IRL. In DCS the Gazelle never stop rolling until fly on the back... IRL if you displace the cyclic x cm on the right, you will have a x degrees roll angle (it's a little bit simplified but too hard to explain in English for me)

 

... and the problem been acknowledged by PC.

 

9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

When you learn to fly an aircraft, as well a plane or a helo. You learn to get references while looking out of cockpit

...

I'm aware of RL cockpit references and how helicopters and aircraft are flown IRL.

 

9 hours ago, cromhunt said:

And if you find nothing i'm ready to show you how you have to pilot a helo on my server.

Thank you for the offer, I bought two copies of the DCS Gazelle on release and have being flying it for several years, so don't need any help in that regard.


Edited by Ramsay
  • Thanks 1

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 32GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hey:) "Ramsay"

I already say i don't care about all wiki references and other thread by someone else than you,so let it be,please.

Now .

What don't you understand when I say that a real pilot is looking out only. 
I don't care about the position of the cyclic; I am watching my position relative to the horizon.
Now since you insist and to see if you know what you're talking about, I have a question.
If you are able to answer it we continue, otherwise sorry but it's over.
Describe everything that happens in flight when I push the cyclic to the right or to the left. 
Describe all the side effects.

And in the same time describe the gyroscopic precession. 


Don't forget anything.

Only with your words,no videos ,no threads quoted,NO GRAPHICS,no token of someone else,just your words.

It's your last chance to be listened.

This thread is to talk about "flying helicopter in real" not in DCS.


Edited by cromhunt
  • Confused 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cromhunt said:

I don't care about the position of the cyclic; I am watching my position relative to the horizon.

Understood.

 

10 minutes ago, cromhunt said:

If you are able to answer it we continue, otherwise sorry but it's over.

It's over, thank you for your input.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 32GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Describe everything that happens in flight when I push the cyclic to the right or to the left. 
Describe all the side effects.

And in the same time describe the gyroscopic precession.

@cromhuntCan you do it? I'm really interested in the part where you think the continuous roll from minimal cyclic input comes from. (Hint: it's not gyroscopic precession)

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course i can do it:)

Stop your ridiculous rethoric method.

However i'm not sure you will be able to understand all the stuffs.

And as a proof that you said that gyroscopic precession has no impact.You are wrong this caracteristic is common to all stuff turning.
And necessarily on a rotor.

 

Now i'm tired to explain that things to everybody who has any knowledge for nothing.
Make your proper research as usual with your favorite wiki.
This thread is "flying helicopter in real"not something to make your fantasms beconmig real.

now it's over .
Come back with something from your real own proper flight experience that you can talk.


Edited by cromhunt
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, cromhunt said:

Of course i can do it:)

Yeah, sure. 😂
The effect of gyroscopic precession is actually modelled in DCS, but i don't tell you which helicopter module. Can you tell me which one?

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok,that's enough now
Trolling is the mark of dumb ass
Like for "Ramsay" what don't you understand when i say "flying helicopter in real"?

Do you do that ? in real?
furthermore i let a way for those who want talking de DCS sur mon server;
check it out above.
If not ,so long and have a good game.


Edited by cromhunt
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm... You want to test our knowledge but deny being tested yourself? Why don't you share with us what you know, so that we can see how qualified you are?

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Like for "Ramsay" what don't you understand when i say "flying helicopter in real"?

I had hoped you would be open to discuses measurements made of a "real" Gazelle in flight and the observations of a fellow ALAT Gazelle SA-342M1 pilot who gave feedback to PC dev's for a while.

After asking me

 

23 hours ago, cromhunt said:

wonder where you find this stupid assertion that suppose the cyclic doesn't return to neutral after a push or a pull ?

 

... I gave you an answer and sources of why I thought that was the case, you derided the National Technical Report Library of the US Department of Commerce as a wiki reference.

 

13 hours ago, cromhunt said:

i don't care about all wiki references

 

While I could attempt to

13 hours ago, cromhunt said:

Describe everything that happens in flight when I push the cyclic to the right or to the left. 
Describe all the side effects.

And in the same time describe the gyroscopic precession. 

 ... either briefly or as a 2 page technical paper, it would not be a discussion paper about "real" helicopter flight.

 

My assessment of your request is (perhaps wrongly) that it is similar to your mention of the "starflex" coupling i.e. a technical detail to obfuscate discussion (I expected follow up details, instead you switched to a short biography).

 

Writing a technical paper really doesn't seem worth my time as PC have already acknowledged the issue with the Gazelle's cyclic position and gone into some detail (a series of twitch streams) on how it and several other problems have been fixed in the new Kiowa flight model.

 

If it is any consolation to you, PC described the Gazelle's current cyclic sensitivity as correct, however to expect it to be necessary to displace the cyclic from it's center position during flight once the new FM is ported over.

 

As you are only looking for "real" helicopter pilots

 

13 hours ago, cromhunt said:

I don't care about the position of the cyclic; I am watching my position relative to the horizon.

 

... I'll leave you to discuss your "feelings" on the Gazelle's flight model with others who are more qualified.


Edited by Ramsay
  • Like 2

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 32GB DDR4, RTX2070 Super 8GB, 1TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 1+1TB SSD, MSFFB2 joystick, X52 Pro Throttle, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Gazelle is just a perfectly balanced weapon in the Digital Combat simulation.

 

In pure combat terms, it not only performs its prime directive perfectly but exceeds all other attack chopper modules within DCS.

From my point of view the gazelle gets a lot more right than ED got right with the KA-50, all other Chopper modules are utility helicopters that we may pretend are tough.... but they are not.... they are just utility helicopters with lots of weapons.

 

 


Edited by Rogue Trooper
  • Confused 1

HP pro Reverb.

Current settings:

Windows VR setting: IPD is 64.5mm, High image quality, 90Hz refresh rate.

Steam: VR SS set to 100%, motionReprojectionMode set to "motionreproduction" and Locked in at 45 Hz display,

DCS: Pixel Density 1.0, Forced IPD at 55 (perceived world size), 2 X MSAA, 0 X SSAA.

My real IPD is 64.5mm. Prescription VROptition lenses installed.

VR Driver system:

I9-9900KS 5Ghz CPU. XI Hero motherboard and 2080ti graphics card, 32 gigs Ram 3

[code][code][code][code]

[/code][/code][/code][/code]200 Hz. No OC at the mo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rogue Trooper said:

From my point of view the gazelle gets a lot more right than ED got right with the KA-50, all other Chopper modules are utility helicopters that we may pretend are tough.... but they are not.... they are just utility helicopters with lots of weapons.

@Rogue Trooper
Goodness... Please don't be the clueless gamer, you obviously only scratched the surface of DCS. Switch from the Gazelle with super simplified joystick mode to ED helicopters with a Komodo Simulation or Puma PAS cyclic in springless trimmer mode or a FFB stick in default trimmer mode first before posting such nonsense. You'll get the experience how a cyclic works for the first time and it will definitely work as an eye opener and gamechanger for heli flightsims in general for you. You'll see for the first time what DCS really has to offer. It's like going from a gamepad in Mario Kart to a racing wheel controller in a racing sim. The difference is that even Mario Kart gets most of it's basics right, the Gazelle module... not. Then come back here please, we can start talking on the same level.


Edited by RealDCSpilot
  • Like 1

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just another perfect video showing cyclic control and airframe reaction. You move the cyclic, aircraft reacts and it's attitude stays where cyclic input commands it to stay.
 


If you want to make the heli bank at a certain angle to the right, you put cyclic to the right and hold it there. It's so easy to understand and all we want for the Gazelle in DCS.


Edited by RealDCSpilot
  • Like 1

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it's all been explained already and instead of having a good game you insist on cluttering the topic with clueless gamers' mumbo-jumbo:


1. The cyclic doesn't work, because you're staring at it. For the first time in your gamers' life look outside the cockpit and just align the helo against the horizon, like a RL pilot, then the cyclic works. Now, you may be wondering what's going on in this video Real linked, but actually it's an ultimate proof cromhunt was right - it's clear the pilot in the video didn't look at the cyclic and see - the cyclic works! What bigger proof do you need?


2. Stop constantly using engineers' calculations and all these figures! RL pilots don't and that's why their aircraft fly. Another proof.


3. Your anecdotal pieces of so-called "evidence", test reports and virtually anything you can provide, are worthless by the powers of sheer logic - you don't have a RL pilot's experience. Moreover, if such papers contradict RL pilot's experience, they are just wrong. It's actually obvious, just think about it - if a paper is wrong, nothing happens, if a pilot is wrong, he's dead. So if a living pilot says he's right, who/what would you rather believe, huh?


4. I don't mean to be rude, but it's been incidentally disclosed that Real is a dumb ass, and Ramsay, although a courageous man (good on him!), squandered his last chance, so just go, your input cannot be of any value, you've admitted already not to have any RL experience on helos. Stick to the facts - you don't. So go.

 

[Sarcasm mode off...]

 

cromhunt's input is actually very valuable! It proves something with great power.
I know it's extremely pretentious to quote myself, but I'll do it (I'm a dumb ass, too):

Quote

A RL pilot, by the very fact that he/she is a RL pilot, is NOT a good "judge" to assess the qualities of a flight simulator. It's a common fallacy.
Only a RL pilot who is also an aware/conscious/savvy flight simmer is such good judge.

 

I didn't want to elaborate on that, but hell... maybe I should? No one's gonna read it anyways, so it can't do any harm.

 

Pilots know everything about flying, but may know nothing about the difference between a "flight simulation" and a "fly game", they may even know very little about computers apart from them being useful to read news or e-mail a friend. Pilots don't have to be gamers or flight simmers.

To make things worse, pilots are quite likely to care the least about flight sims. Why? For them such a sim/game is a rather funny attempt of achieving something that can never get close to RL flying, the very premise of sitting in front of a computer and pretending to "fly" may seem rather ridiculous to them (well, objectively, it is ridiculous), so why would THEY care?

Sure, they'll be enthusiastic about the sim/game you show them, because they're "flight nerds", they love planes, but don't expect them to "dive" into it, split hairs, evaluate if drag/cyclic/whatever seems right etc. - they're outside of it.
(SOME pilots may go down this rabbit hole, those who took pleasure in fake-flying, but it's only SOME of them.)
Other people - bakers, plumbers, accountants - they may care a lot more. If they're interested in aviation, but can't fly any other way (life choices, health issues etc.), a sim is often their only chance to get a taste of it. Such people may get very nitpicky about how realistic this unrealistic flight is.

 

[Silly stories mode on...]

Lots of years ago I'd scuba dive and I was just thinking how this could look for me.

Imagine this: there's "Microsoft Diving Simulator", "X-Dive" and "Digital Underwater Combat Simulator" 😉
Now, someone drags me in front of a computer and here's the conversation:
- Dive! Tell me if it's realistic?
- What? It's a computer. What do you want from me?
- No, no, it's the X-Dive, man, a simulator, not some stupid "dive game", now go dive and tell me.
- Uh.. yeah, alright, how do I move my fins?
- Left and right arrows.
- How do I inflate/deflate the suit?
- Num+, Num-.
- Okay...  Hey, the bubbles go up, that's realistic! Hmm... when I press the arrows faster, I actually swim faster - how cool is that! Now wait a second... when I'm deeper the sound of air in the hose gets louder and "stingy"...I'll be damned! It's a great simulation, man! I'd never think you could have something like this on a computer!
(I still think it's a stupid idea to sit in an office chair and pretend to be under water, but this game was actually cool, and the graphics, sounds, just as in real life. Impressive!)

- I KNEW THAT! (says the diving simmer)


And the conlusion is: "X-Dive 15 has a very realistic DM (dive model), confirmed by an RL diver!". Period. The above words (without "damn!" and "hell!") were printed on the game's box. A zillion copies sold worldwide. I mean, 5 thousand copies, it's a diving simulator after all - an extremely niche thing, but it was a great success.

 

Some time later some nitpicky diving sim freak comes and says:
- You, diver, have you noticed that bubbles on the surface look the same regardless of how deep/shallow you are below? Is that realistic?
- Uhm... no, sorry, I haven't. If that's the case, it's not.
- Have you measured the time it took you to get from one "anchor" (I don't know the English word - a cylindrical iron weigh with a loop used as a simple "anchor" for a buoy) to the other, along that line stretched between them at the bottom?
- No, why?
- It takes 20 seconds, so it means your swimming at about 16 knots. Is it realistic?
- HELL, NO!
- The air is drained from the tank regardless of your physical effort, no matter if you stand still or swim fast. Is it realistic?
- No!
Etc. etc.

[Silly stories mode off...]

 

See? No one gave me a "rulebook" for calling something "realistic", so how can I tell? The fact that I have RL experience didn't help much and I was mislead by the first impression. And I was truly excited about this diving simulation/game/whatever, I'm a diving nerd, after all, so how couldn't I be excited!

Same goes to ANY simulation and ANY RL pilot/whoever who doesn't know what he could/should expect. It's just natural.

 

cromhunt just picked a different rulebook. The bubbles go up, so it's good. Don't look at the stick and you'll be fine.

 

If you're wondering if I have a life to live, then yes - I do. I took time to follow this cheap path (I admit) to ridicule what cromhunt's saying for a reason, though. I don't care if he's being full of himself, none of my business. I do care, however, that when people asked him to reveal how he thinks Gazelle's FM is right, he just ridiculed them with "shut up gamers, what do you know". Yes, it's rude, but I'm sure grown up folks can handle it, but he's potentially spreading misinformation... and these modules cost. Some may not care so much about FM and it's absolutely fine - she's a beautiful and dangerous bee, so go for her if you like (I'd love to!). Some other, however, are more interested in FM's and stuff and may choose to wait until Gazelle is reworked somehow. For example - myself. There may be others.

If there's anything on the table that indicates the Gazelle's FM is actually right (and people here were just mistaken - it happens, not a sin), then I'm first in the queue for such news!

 

@cromhunt So, please, have some responsibility for your words, Sir, ESPECIALLY because of your RL experience. It does matter, people read it.

 

  • Like 3
  • Confused 1

i7-8700K GTX1060(6GB) 16GB 27"@1080p TM Hawg HOTAS TPR TIR3 SD-XL button/pot box
UH1 Mi8 Ka50 10CII 18 5 86 MiG15 109 Spit 51 47 A8 superc. PG NTTR Norm. Channel

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah. With that rulebook, everything that just moves somehow with stick and throttle input has the right flightmodel, nice. Who needs flight models anyway? Flight simulators? Ahhh come on... forget about flight sims, they are just games like everything else. What a waste of time and money on developing something that only tries to imitate something from reality with numbers and calculation mumbo jumbo.


Edited by RealDCSpilot
  • Like 1

i9 10920X @4.8GHz, 3090 OC, 64 GB RAM @3600, Valve Index, HOTAS & Rudder: all Virpil with FFB base mod (G940), DCS: all modules

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/1/2021 at 11:40 AM, cromhunt said:

What don't you understand when I say that a real pilot is looking out only. 

I don't care about the position of the cyclic; I am watching my position relative to the horizon.

 

When you fly helicopter, you always feel the cyclic position. You do not look at it, as you don't need to in normal cases, but you feel it's relative position from its movement range.

 

You will feel the wind, weight, speed and all by the collective, cyclic and pedals that in what position you have them and you will translate that all in your mind to outside conditions and helicopter attitude. 

 

Example, when you want to fly straight and level but you feel you are holding cyclic almost at maximum right, you know that you have almost zero capability to roll at the right,l. You don't have authority to perform a right turn or apply any more roll toward wind etc as your cyclic is near maximum. 

 

So without looking the cyclic, you feel it and you know something is wrong or something can go wrong. Why you will know that you need to perform a left turn or something else as you have authority to there.

 

When you fly in DCS simulator with a a centered and extended joystick like a real cyclic in a helicopter, you will get that proper feeling like in real.

If you have a joystick without extension, on table or side mounted, then you are not going to get the proper feeling.

 

Gazelle was made for a desktop users. Who can not hold a joystick off-center for long because you get tired. In a real cyclic you don't get tired as you rest hand on your leg and just gently hold the cyclic. There is no spring trying to center your cyclic, as center is not a important position in flight.

 

When flying in reality, you will feel the controls and you will feel the forces that how helicopter starts to behave. Your body is your primary sensor that you feel when you roll, when you turn, when you raise etc. You learn to fly the helicopter by these feelings and what you see. With experience the helicopter will at some point just "click" and you get it. It can't be really explained easily as you just get it. It is like trying to explain a element of balance when driving a bicycle. You don't get it until you experience and learn it and suddenly you just get it.

 

The helicopter controls are not fixed. You can't say "hold it 21% right to keep it steady" as all three controls positions and external forces affecting to all three controls positions means you fly it by feeling and visual. You have controls at different positions based weights, wind etc. 

 

That is still something that documentation shows that what is relationship with specific weight, conditions etc to the controls position. That how much it was required to move each of them and to what direction.

 

While with matching conditions there would be little variation in them, in a different conditions there would be a lot variation.

 

To get a same flight conditions like 120 km/h ground speed at 150 meters altitude and level flight, it all depends many variations that where your controls will end to be in reality. And you will feel that, you will just use the controls to get to those parameters and hold there, as there is no visual indicator or rule that where they need to be hold to get to it.

 

But when you compare real world controls data as position, and you compare it as much possible similar conditioned flight in DCS, there is such a differences that just are impossible.

In a simulator we have the red input box for analysis, while in real world you would need to install instrument for that if black box wouldn't record it, but anyways you would need to have special external display to show you same in real time, what is useless in reality as you don't need to debug controls or flight modeling as you feel it.

 

The facts are simple, in real helicopters you are constantly balancing helicopter by moving all three controls and they don't stay center at various speeds and maneuvers etc.

But in DCS that happens in Gazelle, you don't need to move controls positions at all same manner as in real one for same flight parameters.

 

Like to get to max speed you dont need to hold cyclic at fully at forward position, but just at the center. 

 

The Gazelle is nice to fly with a spring loaded table joystick. It doesn't mean it flies properly or correctly, but that you as a player has easy relaxing time to hold on joystick and input just what needed and return joystick to center.

 

But when you take mentioned centered and extended non-centering joystick, it becomes obvious how wrong it is as you always just return cyclic to center to maintain attitude you applied by moving controls away from center for a while. 

 

WIth a physical controls being different, you will receive a different feeling as well how you fly.

in a other modules in DCS you get realistic feeling that you know by feeling where your extended and centered joystick position is, while in Gazelle you don't.

 

the Gazelle doesn't obey the limitations in forces, you don't run out of authority same way as you are not required to hold controls in their corresponding range limits.

like you don't never get to situation where you need to apply constantly full right cyclic to stay in level flight as regardless of anything it is enough to be required only have cyclic at center.

 

Visually you can fly Gazelle properly, but the controls position don't match the required positions to meet the flight conditions.

 

Example, if someone would wire a real Gazelle controls to PC running a DCS World Gazelle and put the real pilot sitting in that real Gazelle wearing VR and ask them to tell is it wrong by controls, they would come up obvious answer that Yes. As they wouldn't be required to move those controls like in real one.

ORnif we would output controls position from real Gazelle wirelessly to PC running DCS Gazelle, from a take-off to end, the DCS Gazelle just listening those real controls positions would make it flip around even harder than simulation limits of same wind, temperature and altitude. You couldn't get the simulator Gazelle mirror by any means the real Gazelle flight with same controls positions in same environment conditions.

 

This doesn't meant that other modules could either, but likely they would survive far further with much smaller incorrect inputs from real.

 

Ultimate would be that simulator would mirror flight perfectly but that is impossible.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

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 post
Share on other sites

Well said Fri13.

 

 

Fox

 

 

 

  • Like 1

Eagle Dynamics, ceterum censeo: dare nobis ME CCLXII!

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, EVGA RTX 3080 FTW3 ULTRA GAMING, 64GB RAM 3600Mhz, Samsung SSD 970 EVO Plus 1TB, HP Reverb (G1)

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fri13 said:

When flying in reality, you will feel the controls and you will feel the forces that how helicopter starts to behave. Your body is your primary sensor that you feel when you roll, when you turn, when you raise etc. You learn to fly the helicopter by these feelings and what you see. With experience the helicopter will at some point just "click" and you get it. It can't be really explained easily as you just get it. It is like trying to explain a element of balance when driving a bicycle. You don't get it until you experience and learn it and suddenly you just get it.

we can't say better 
you hit the bull"s eye

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, scoobie said:

To make things worse, pilots are quite likely to care the least about flight sims. Why? For them such a sim/game is a rather funny attempt of achieving something that can never get close to RL flying, the very premise of sitting in front of a computer and pretending to "fly" may seem rather ridiculous to them (well, objectively, it is ridiculous), so why would THEY care?

Sure, they'll be enthusiastic about the sim/game you show them, because they're "flight nerds", they love planes, but don't expect them to "dive" into it, split hairs, evaluate if drag/cyclic/whatever seems right etc. - they're outside of it.
(SOME pilots may go down this rabbit hole, those who took pleasure in fake-flying, but it's only SOME of them.)

 

You do know that A-10C is in DCS because US Army contracted ED to make them a desktop simulator to train pilots in conversion from A to C?

 

That later on many things has been improved where militaries use these days these "games" for training, not just as desktop system modeling but actually to fly.

 

https://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/actus-air/cap-160-reinventer-la-formation-des-equipages-d-helicopteres?fbclid=IwAR3jUN0l2wY2lCARH1uNTaFvb4oWilgSxk_Y-l7Z8u-xCXHBDZxzgBAckoM

 

The Razbam M2000C module was assuming (wrong) many things before French Air Force officially gave their hand to make M2000C more realistic and proper for their flight simulator purposes.

 

And militaries do not just build something like this for a fun:

 

 

 

Or train their pilots in conventional simulators from decades as:

 

1034px-HL-10_flight_simulator,_NASA,_1968.jpg

 

HL-10 flight simulator Photo Number: E-18900 Photo Date: June 4, 1968 NASA

 

As shown in this photo of the HL-10 flight simulator, the lifting-body pilots and engineers made use of early simulators for both training and the determination of a given vehicle's handling at various speeds, attitudes, and altitudes. This provided warning of possible problems.

 

Or normal civilian aviation airliner companies.

 

Simulator-flight-compartment.jpeg.jpeg

 

The internet forums for various flight simulators has a lot of examples how civilian pilots has learn to fly in them, homes their skills and shorten their training times and become better pilots. And they have been flying at home, front of a display without any moving platforms or VR etc. And that just 20 years ago.

 

There are even certifications for flight simulators from FAA to be used officially for flight training.

 

ED main business is not consumers, it is governments and private companies to build flight simulators for them. Same thing is with some other module studios.

 

Pilots are not usually engineers (there are some who are qualified engineers for aeronautical). They do not really know why or how plane flies as is. That is the test pilots job with support from the engineers.

But pilots do learn the basics and the main information to fly, but they are not required to know everything or the theories why and how etc. They just fly them and maybe in time on their career they learn thing or two from engineers and ground crews etc. 

Pilots are not rock stars or the masters of universe. They are human beings trained to fly and to do what is expected, nothing more.

 

But when a gamers come to simulator that tries to deliver as real as one can get without being in a cockpit with real forces, they need to either accept that either simulator tries achieve that and it is the goal, or they can accept anything that simple game industry provides them in movie style without requirements to be even close to reality and try to call any simulator as "not suitable for a training because X". And it is even bad to try to defend a completely wrong modeled flight modeling in one module by trying to claim that all others are as bad as well... "Because pilots..."

 

Without engineers pilots would kill themselves even more. Engineers are required to understand the flights and build a safety features for pilots do they wouldn't exceed the limits. Write the documentation and guidelines to pilots. Time and money is invested to pilots training that they do not fly by visuals but by knowledge that what instruments say and what they should do and what not.

  • Thanks 2

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 post
Share on other sites

Yes, I knew it and thanks for bringing all these cool details! It's just... uhm... I'm not sure if there's a point of contention between us. 🙂 I mean, what you wrote is just facts, it makes the picture broader.

  • Like 1

i7-8700K GTX1060(6GB) 16GB 27"@1080p TM Hawg HOTAS TPR TIR3 SD-XL button/pot box
UH1 Mi8 Ka50 10CII 18 5 86 MiG15 109 Spit 51 47 A8 superc. PG NTTR Norm. Channel

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...