Jump to content

Flying helicopter in real


cromhunt

Recommended Posts

Just now, RealDCSpilot said:

This is not what i meant. After startup, go into hover and try to hover to the left/right - any direction... The smallest cyclic input result is a linear continous roll, this is just as wrong as it could be for a Gazelle type of helicopter.

 

So let me say it differently for others hypothetically.

 

Let's say that one's joystick has +/- 35 degree gimbal movement.

Applying a 0.5 degree tilt to the right causes Gazelle to continuously roll to the right at 0.5 degree a second.

The rolling to right will not stop (in 2 seconds it is 1 degree roll to right, in 4 seconds it is 2 degrees, in 6 seconds it is 3 degrees etc) before the cyclic is returned back to center (0 degrees).

And having the joystick centered keeps that X degrees roll angle to right infinitely, until joystick is tilted to left X degrees and then the Gazelle starts to roll to the left X degrees per second until joystick is again centered to 0 degrees.

 

That is how fixed aircraft work and not like helicopters work. 

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imagine if the same issue was in place for any fixed wing module, though in opposite.

 

You'd have an aircraft that would continuously start self-stabilizing despite you applying continuous pitch and/or roll input.

 

People would go absolutely mental and it would never have passed any form of QA simply because of how commonly understood fixed wing behaviour is.

 

And since the guy in the video mentioned that he was hoping for a fix after the Kiowa is released, let's not forget that PC already stated that they would work on fixing the Gazelle *in tandem* with developing the Kiowa instead of waiting until afterwards. Still nothing as of yet.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sephyrius said:

Imagine if the same issue was in place for any fixed wing module, though in opposite.

 

You'd have an aircraft that would continuously start self-stabilizing despite you applying continuous pitch and/or roll input.

 

Thank you for making my brains have some gymnastics by trying to think a such behavior that wouldn't make a sense...

 

1 hour ago, Sephyrius said:

People would go absolutely mental and it would never have passed any form of QA simply because of how commonly understood fixed wing behaviour is.

 

Well, I recall that people went mental when the reports started to come about oversensitivity and odd behavior. Only that reporters got attacked by claims that Gazelle is perfection but it is speciality as it is so light small and has fancy SAS.

 

1 hour ago, Sephyrius said:

And since the guy in the video mentioned that he was hoping for a fix after the Kiowa is released, let's not forget that PC already stated that they would work on fixing the Gazelle *in tandem* with developing the Kiowa instead of waiting until afterwards. Still nothing as of yet.

 

I haven't read about that. I thought as well that they visit Gazelle after Kiowa is out and "polished" etc.

As far I know it was that they needed to do new development software for the Kiowa and then use that same for Gazelle later on.

 

But sooner we get fixed Gazelle, then better.

  • Like 1

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, RealDCSpilot said:

This is not what i meant. After startup, go into hover and try to hover to the left/right - any direction... The smallest cyclic input result is a linear continous roll, this is just as wrong as it could be for a Gazelle type of helicopter.

 

Ahh, I thought you meant in a real helo before. Yes, in hover the cyclic needs to be kept displaced as the dissymetry of lift will act to side wind or hovering sideways as forward flight. As I understand it, the DCS gazelle doesnt even need a displaced (forward) cyclic for forward flight ?

Seems they have made the gazelle module to act like a radio controlled helicopter which use a flybar for stabilisation. Wonder if they had a RC-pilot to "help" with the flight characteristics ? 😆

[T.M HOTAS Warthog Stick & Throttle + T.Flight pedals, Varjo Aero, HP Reverb pro, Pimax 8KX] 🙂

[DCS Mirage 2K; Huey; Spitfire Mk IX, AJS 37, F-14, F-18, FC3, A-10 Warthog II and a few more ]

i9 13900KF@5.8/32Gb DDR5@6400/ Gigabyte Gaming OC RTX4090, ASUS STRIX Z790-F , 2Tb m2 NVMe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

As I understand it, the DCS gazelle doesnt even need a displaced (forward) cyclic for forward flight ?

 

No need. You just need to push it momentarily forward to get the wanted forward angle and then return it to center for continuous forward flight.

 

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

Seems they have made the gazelle module to act like a radio controlled helicopter which use a flybar for stabilisation. Wonder if they had a RC-pilot to "help" with the flight characteristics ? 😆

 

To me it seems that they have made the Gazelle to be flyable by a table-top joystick that is spring centering.

I do not get any other reason to make it so wrong, than just make it flyable by large majority of the gamers who have no extension and have no non-centering/springless/FF joystick properly attached to between legs and collective and pedals and all. 

 

They say that they had a real Gazelle pilots to confirm the flight modeling. But that doesn't mean a thing as it requires the context that the pilots would need to validate it. If it is a "yeah, it doesn't perform crazy 360 turn in half a second" or "Yeah, you get to fly low and you can hover nicely" by using table top joystick and all, or even a gamepad. Then they can sign anything as "valid" as if they do not get the understanding that it should be a study level simulator where they should be able use even a real helicopter controls to fly on parking slot with a big flat TV front of the real helicopter... 

 

If someone is happy for having Gazelle regardless what is its flight modeling or input system modeling, then they are having trouble when things gets fixed or if they really believe real one flies like it.

 

I was today flying Gazelle just to confirm those few things, and it is just funny that after you get past 50 km/h speed the flight happens with just the cyclic. You can take feets off from pedals, hand off from collective and just fly around with cyclic to do all maneuvers in tight streets and so on.

 

But that is a dead horse to beat as Polychop is going to fix it.... So they know they need to fix it. 

  • Like 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 comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fri13 said:

I haven't read about that. I thought as well that they visit Gazelle after Kiowa is out and "polished" etc.

As far I know it was that they needed to do new development software for the Kiowa and then use that same for Gazelle later on.

 

But sooner we get fixed Gazelle, then better.

 

"Your message is clear though and it made us reconsider our priorities. As stated before, our intentions were to learn from the flaws in the Gazelle and build the new module from scratch, then implement and adapt the new code for the Gazelle module. Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel."

 

And that was back in September 2019, so I kinda have my doubts...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Sephyrius said:

"Your message is clear though and it made us reconsider our priorities. As stated before, our intentions were to learn from the flaws in the Gazelle and build the new module from scratch, then implement and adapt the new code for the Gazelle module. Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel."

 

And that was back in September 2019, so I kinda have my doubts...

 

I think that Polychop said few months ago that they are 70% ready in the flight modeling for Kiowa. That gave doubts to many that they are going to complete the Kiowa in 2021 as it was like 9 months left at the time to get last 30% of it done.

And if they now have changed to renew the gazelle flight model same time... It is just going to slow down both. 

 

I am happy to be wrong with such assessment as I would have liked to see Kiowa out in 2021 (hey, it is suppose to be "Year of Helicopters" after all!) but now it might go to 2022.

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

To me it seems that they have made the Gazelle to be flyable by a table-top joystick that is spring centering.

I do not get any other reason to make it so wrong, than just make it flyable by large majority of the gamers who have no extension and have no non-centering/springless/FF joystick properly attached to between legs and collective and pedals and all. 

 

If someone is happy for having Gazelle regardless what is its flight modeling or input system modeling, then they are having trouble when things gets fixed or if they really believe real one flies like it.

 

Well, even if I havent tried it its clelar that the dcs gazelle is not close to reality. DCS have different flight models and I think they would be better of saying its not close to the real thing but ”adopted for gaming with a classic joystick”.  If they say the flight model is verified by real Gazelle pilots, something is clearly wrong, that why I think it looks like someone not really knowing som (like a RC helikopter enthusiast or so) did get some input on this module. 

 

On the other hand, I have seen flight characteristics in DCS being quite exaggerated to the extent that it has gotten completely unreaslistic. It is hard doing a dcs module that is both very realistic and at the same time ”flyable” with a short standard PC joystick. 

I have been a little involved in the BO105 flight model earlier, and they wanted it to be as ”close as possible” to the real thing.  The real BO need very small cyclic movements comnpared to some other real helos for normal flying. Thats small movements on a about 55cm long cyclic. On a joystick the movements would be extremely small if made as close as possible. At the same time the secondary effects* from collective is extreme on the BO. Seen togehter it would be very hard to fly a BO on a small PC joystick in dcs without getting serious PIO. The essence from the behaviour described below is that anyone trying to fly the BO105 flight model, if made exactly ”as is” will get a sharp nose up and sharp right roll when increasing the collective. The correction is needed but the amount on a real flight stick might be only a few millimeters forward and left on a real cyclic so maybe 1mm forward and left on a joystick. 

So whats needed is some common sense to make a flight model flyable with a joystick, and maybe some characteristics should be left out or maken weaker not to make it to hard to fly.  I think, anyone with experience should recognize the feeling but should not have a hard time flying it due to the difference between a real cyclic and a joystick.  This doesnt excuse the flight behaviour of the dcs gaselle, thats not the point I have. 

 

 The DCS Huey is a good example(although there is some things that is not really like the real one and could be fixed). The Huey feels nice and fun and give a good feeling despite it it not very close to the real Huey in multiple aspects. 

 

*Increasing collective makes a strong nose up and strong roll to the right(how much is speed dependent), so flying straight and level at 60 to 80knots with the cyclic trimmed and increasing power significant will causer a pitch up moment that eventually would have the nose 90 degree upp if the speed didnt bleed of, and the roll rate would put it inverted. This combined, with the right amount of collective could set you up with about 45 degree nose up and 90 degree right roll and speed decreasing below 40-45knots, at the ”top” decreasing the collective cause a left roll and nose down so you have now completed a stall turn and are flying from the same way you came from(180 degree change direction. This with the pedals held in the same position with now compensation for the increases torque and also the cyclic held completely still. 

  • Like 1

[T.M HOTAS Warthog Stick & Throttle + T.Flight pedals, Varjo Aero, HP Reverb pro, Pimax 8KX] 🙂

[DCS Mirage 2K; Huey; Spitfire Mk IX, AJS 37, F-14, F-18, FC3, A-10 Warthog II and a few more ]

i9 13900KF@5.8/32Gb DDR5@6400/ Gigabyte Gaming OC RTX4090, ASUS STRIX Z790-F , 2Tb m2 NVMe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

On the other hand, I have seen flight characteristics in DCS being quite exaggerated to the extent that it has gotten completely unreaslistic. It is hard doing a dcs module that is both very realistic and at the same time ”flyable” with a short standard PC joystick.

 

I don't know how to put it, but I think ED needs to redesign the whole input system for DCS. As there are lot of differences what controls players has and then how they can tweak the axis in it. 

 

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

I have been a little involved in the BO105 flight model earlier, and they wanted it to be as ”close as possible” to the real thing.  The real BO need very small cyclic movements comnpared to some other real helos for normal flying. Thats small movements on a about 55cm long cyclic. On a joystick the movements would be extremely small if made as close as possible. At the same time the secondary effects* from collective is extreme on the BO. Seen togehter it would be very hard to fly a BO on a small PC joystick in dcs without getting serious PIO. The essence from the behaviour described below is that anyone trying to fly the BO105 flight model, if made exactly ”as is” will get a sharp nose up and sharp right roll when increasing the collective. The correction is needed but the amount on a real flight stick might be only a few millimeters forward and left on a real cyclic so maybe 1mm forward and left on a joystick.

 

Divide the real cyclic length (from the position where grip is to gimbal) squared and you get the required movement. So let's say that with 50 cm it is required to do a 5 mm movement, then at 25 cm length it is 2.5 mm. With 12 cm joystick it is 1.25 mm. With a 5 cm it is 0.6 mm movement. 

 

Add a spring force, mechanical stickiness, axis jittery, low resolution (8-bit) and all, and it becomes impossible.

That is why I have for helicopter flying a 50 cm length (from gimbal axis to palm rest, so with two fingers it is little longer) as it makes possible to do all the small corrections without thinking the control. 

 

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

So whats needed is some common sense to make a flight model flyable with a joystick, and maybe some characteristics should be left out or maken weaker not to make it to hard to fly.  I think, anyone with experience should recognize the feeling but should not have a hard time flying it due to the difference between a real cyclic and a joystick.  This doesnt excuse the flight behaviour of the dcs gaselle, thats not the point I have.

 

That is better said about the input system. I think that is the key that we would get to options a simpler value to select the proper length of the stick to have a acceptable compromise for the control input. 

 

I am believer that stick and joystick should match 1:1 in their movement range (hard to do with F-16 force stick) so full joystick deflection is full stick deflection.

 

As right now example in the Gazelle the stick barely moves visually with full joystick movement. It is like stationary one that just is there. And it can be seen even in the cockpit videos from flight students and instructors that how much they need to wave the stick around to make the required corrections. And you can't have that kind movement in DCS with 1:1 ratio as the cyclic in cockpit doesn't like to move. 

 

1 minute ago, Gunnars Driver said:

 The DCS Huey is a good example(although there is some things that is not really like the real one and could be fixed). The Huey feels nice and fun and give a good feeling despite it it not very close to the real Huey in multiple aspects.

 

Yeah, but could be improved. Like having a setting so that system would take in consideration the joystick real length to start with so it would be easier to tweak. 

Those who have a short joystick would get assisting features easily enabled to make the helicopter enjoyable. 

 

As hard fact is that not everyone has same gaming equipment and hardware, and not everyone has skill to fly with limits that DCS can offer. But it would be nice to have various settings across different gaming devices. As I don't think it is acceptable to expect gamers to buy all expensive helicopter controls to start to get as close as possible, or to force such settings to those who do. 

 

It is just very difficult to model a real control system to completely different kind.

  • Like 1

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And if they now have changed to renew the gazelle flight model same time... It is just going to slow down both. 

As I mentioned, this post was from September 2019, so it's not really anything new that should've directlyly affected the current Kiowa delay.

 

As for controls, I think the twitchiness of the Gazelle (and that FFB is and always will break the controls entirely) got confused with the actual FM concerns, which is unfortunate.

Personally I use a Sidewinder FFB2 with an extension, 70% saturation (except for the last 30% of stick deflection being increased to still allow maximum deflection) and simply disabled the self-centering for the Gazelle.

It works great but would be much better if the cyclic behaviour wasn't messed up. Just gotten used to flying it unrealistically, but that shouldn't be an expectation in a sim.


Edited by Sephyrius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Gunnars Driver said:

 

Well, even if I havent tried it its clelar that the dcs gazelle is not close to reality. DCS have different flight models and I think they would be better of saying its not close to the real thing but ”adopted for gaming with a classic joystick”.  If they say the flight model is verified by real Gazelle pilots, something is clearly wrong, that why I think it looks like someone not really knowing som (like a RC helikopter enthusiast or so) did get some input on this module. 

 

On the other hand, I have seen flight characteristics in DCS being quite exaggerated to the extent that it has gotten completely unreaslistic. It is hard doing a dcs module that is both very realistic and at the same time ”flyable” with a short standard PC joystick. 

I have been a little involved in the BO105 flight model earlier, and they wanted it to be as ”close as possible” to the real thing.  The real BO need very small cyclic movements comnpared to some other real helos for normal flying. Thats small movements on a about 55cm long cyclic. On a joystick the movements would be extremely small if made as close as possible. At the same time the secondary effects* from collective is extreme on the BO. Seen togehter it would be very hard to fly a BO on a small PC joystick in dcs without getting serious PIO. The essence from the behaviour described below is that anyone trying to fly the BO105 flight model, if made exactly ”as is” will get a sharp nose up and sharp right roll when increasing the collective. The correction is needed but the amount on a real flight stick might be only a few millimeters forward and left on a real cyclic so maybe 1mm forward and left on a joystick. 

So whats needed is some common sense to make a flight model flyable with a joystick, and maybe some characteristics should be left out or maken weaker not to make it to hard to fly.  I think, anyone with experience should recognize the feeling but should not have a hard time flying it due to the difference between a real cyclic and a joystick.  This doesnt excuse the flight behaviour of the dcs gaselle, thats not the point I have. 

 

 The DCS Huey is a good example(although there is some things that is not really like the real one and could be fixed). The Huey feels nice and fun and give a good feeling despite it it not very close to the real Huey in multiple aspects. 

 

 

+1000!

 

It's really great to read this from a professional military pilot, not only with regard to the Gazelle, but to DCS modules in general.

 

When FM engineers pat their shoulders because by exaggerating certain characteristics they've managed to create the "most realistic" rendition of an aircraft to the point that you cannot properly fly it with regular flight sim hardware anymore, something has clearly got out of bounds.

 

And it's not only the disparity in controls, their size etc., it's also the fact that you don't have physical feedback in a desktop sim. In a real aircraft, you can feel what's going on and will control the aircraft with subtlety accordingly.

 

Also, except for some test aircraft, planes and helicopters are rather easy to control for any average pilot who has been trained on the particular aircraft. FM designers should mind this when they create their FMs, and some people need to mind this when judging flight models. 

 

Thank you Gunnars Driver, well said.

 

 


Edited by Pilot Ike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Gunnars Driver

I agree with most points, you mentioned. I don't want to participate in the discussion so much, as it was veery hard to convince PolyChop that their Gazelle's FM is not that of a Helicopter. Now that they said to rework the FM, we have to wait for it to get updated.

In case ED has a -free to fly- week again, try out the DCS Gazelle. I did. I was happy I didn't buy it. When I tried it, one thing came into my mind: Lunar Landing module.

But of course it can be fun to operate this module, it just doesn't fly like a conventional helicopter with one main and one tail rotor.

 

But actually one thing you mentioned is of particular interest for me

 

On 5/6/2021 at 12:19 PM, Gunnars Driver said:

The superpuma (I got some 2K h in it) has a advanced mechanichal mixer that actually moves the cyclic forward when the collective is raised, to counteract the secondary effects. It actually has that advanced mixer despite having an AP(SAS system) with attitude hold function.   

 Which SuperPuma are you talking about? L1, L2,etc? If you like, PM would be also okay.

 

 

6 hours ago, Gunnars Driver said:

On the other hand, I have seen flight characteristics in DCS being quite exaggerated to the extent that it has gotten completely unreaslistic. It is hard doing a dcs module that is both very realistic and at the same time ”flyable” with a short standard PC joystick. 

...

I don't think developers should compensate for "short standard PC joystick", as this Joystick doesn't exist. Length, available gimbal angle, sensor resolution etc. differ from joystick to joystick.

The base should be real geometry, but then options to compensate the joystick's specifications should be available.

Because otherwise we get what we got right now with the DCS Gazelle: A subjective interpretation of how the helicopter would behave, according to verbal input with the non existand standard joystick. And this clearly failed in the Gazelle.

Fri13 has very good points regarding this.

 

2 hours ago, Pilot Ike said:

 

+1000!

 

It's really great to read this from a professional military pilot, not only with regard to the Gazelle, but to DCS modules in general.

 

When FM engineers pat their shoulders because by exaggerating certain characteristics they've managed to create the "most realistic" rendition of an aircraft to the point that you cannot properly fly it with regular flight sim hardware anymore, something has clearly got out of bounds.

 

And it's not only the disparity in controls, their size etc., it's also the fact that you don't have physical feedback in a desktop sim. In a real aircraft, you can feel what's going on and will control the aircraft with subtlety accordingly.

 

Also, except for some test aircraft, planes and helicopters are rather easy to control for any average pilot who has been trained on the particular aircraft. FM designers should mind this when they create their FMs, and some people need to mind this when judging flight models. 

 

Thank you Gunnars Driver, well said.

 

 

 

Ask another professional military pilot and you get a different opinion.

Imho, exaggering a feature has no place in a simulation.

 

 

Fox

Spoiler

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, iFoxRomeo said:

@Gunnars Driver

Which SuperPuma are you talking about? L1, L2,etc? If you like, PM would be also okay.

 

 

I don't think developers should compensate for "short standard PC joystick", as this Joystick doesn't exist. Length, available gimbal angle, sensor resolution etc. differ from joystick to joystick.

The base should be real geometry, but then options to compensate the joystick's specifications should be available.


I got close to buy the DCS Gazelle because of a friend (not a pilot) hauling it a few years back but after a little search here I found out about the flight model. 
 

Yes, a setting that takes the type/variant of cyclic used and adjust for it would be really good. 
 

I did fly the AS332M1. Its virtually a L1, but also virtually a AS532 Cougar. 
The technical course was on the L1, and all simulator training on the AS532. 
I actually think(quite sure) all of them have the ”mixing unit”, probably still there on the H225. I’ll 

If you did fly any AS332 you might have noticed the automatic nose down in the final part of a landing to hover when the helo by itself lowers the nose in the same time collective is raised. As the coupling is nose down when increasing collective it does it during the landing fase as well. 

 

[Edit]Just checked the RFM/Training manual of the H225. Yup, hte mixing and phasing unit/ still there.
 


Edited by Gunnars Driver
iphone spelling...

[T.M HOTAS Warthog Stick & Throttle + T.Flight pedals, Varjo Aero, HP Reverb pro, Pimax 8KX] 🙂

[DCS Mirage 2K; Huey; Spitfire Mk IX, AJS 37, F-14, F-18, FC3, A-10 Warthog II and a few more ]

i9 13900KF@5.8/32Gb DDR5@6400/ Gigabyte Gaming OC RTX4090, ASUS STRIX Z790-F , 2Tb m2 NVMe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When DCS Black Shark was released in 2009, after a lot of years without any hope for a new helicopter sim on the horizon, ED brought something completely new into the sim world. They were the first developer i can remember, who started to work around the self-centering stick problem which does not fit for cyclic controls. I was a normal desk simmer back then and i decided it was time for a HOTAS and got very lucky to go with a G940. This combination totally changed my view on helicopter controls back in the days, for the first time i really understood how this is actually working. Those trimming options totally made sense once it made click in my head and after that, i was really hooked for anything else that came later for DCS as it turned into what it is today. One of the biggest mistakes Polychop ever made, was to not understand how DCS helicopters work. They not only started with zero knowledge of helicopter flight models, they also missed analyzing that the Ka 50, Huey and Mi-8 were designed to fly with springless and force feedback joysticks or had to have a workaround for standard joysticks. They just did what everyone else did before them, working with simple spring-centering joysticks and simplifying controls for desktop use, thinking that making the thing fly somehow is enough. They didn't even consider to have a FFB joystick for FM development and more than a year after release of the Gazelle, they only started to realize what really makes the other DCS helicopters so special. They tried to implement FFB and failed pretty hard "This would need us to completely rewrite the FM...". What happened after that was their next fail, the thought they can make the problem go away by trying to ignore it or sweep it under the carpet. Didn't work out very well.
I completely understand that some guys fall for the Gazelle module because of it's simplified controls. They totally don't get the angle of the discussions and criticism about it, that this is not what helicopter flying in DCS really means and that it is a degradation of what the other helicopter modules stand for.


Edited by RealDCSpilot
  • Like 2

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/9/2021 at 9:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

When DCS Black Shark was released in 2009, after a lot of years without any hope for a new helicopter sim on the horizon, ED brought something completely new into the sim world. They were the first developer i can remember, who started to work around the self-centering stick problem which does not fit for cyclic controls. I was a normal desk simmer back then and i decided it was time for a HOTAS and got very lucky to go with a G940. This combination totally changed my view on helicopter controls back in the days, for the first time i really understood how this is actually working. Those trimming options totally made sense once it made click in my head and after that, i was really hooked for anything else that came later for DCS as it turned into what it is today.

 

A FF joystick was best thing for helicopter simmers they could get. It was far more important than for any fighter pilot. Sure it is for fighter pilot fancy to feel the joystick move based to trim hat inputs, but it still was same "pull from trimmed position" feeling. 

 

For helicopter, oh boy did that trim button do something amazing.... You really got that "Hand's free" experience in KA-50 by its AP channels. Easy to do all fine trim adjustments and program the AP that way without thinking. 

 

On 5/9/2021 at 9:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

One of the biggest mistakes Polychop ever made, was to not understand how DCS helicopters work. They not only started with zero knowledge of helicopter flight models, they also missed analyzing that the Ka 50, Huey and Mi-8 were designed to fly with springless and force feedback joysticks or had to have a workaround for standard joysticks. They just did what everyone else did before them, working with simple spring-centering joysticks and simplifying controls for desktop use, thinking that making the thing fly somehow is enough.

 

I can not get any better explanation than that. Gazelle was designed for a table top joystick with heavy spring to center it. So that Gazelle was made to fly so that you can fly it mostly with just having as little as possible joystick holding. 

 

On 5/9/2021 at 9:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

They didn't even consider to have a FFB joystick for FM development and more than a year after release of the Gazelle, they only started to realize what really makes the other DCS helicopters so special. They tried to implement FFB and failed pretty hard "This would need us to completely rewrite the FM...". What happened after that was their next fail, the thought they can make the problem go away by trying to ignore it or sweep it under the carpet. Didn't work out very well.

 

I put my G940 at that time to the closet... It just wasn't usable in Gazelle. Now I have plans and designs for own trim function but without FF. Need just decide when to build it. 

 

On 5/9/2021 at 9:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

I completely understand that some guys fall for the Gazelle module because of it's simplified controls.

 

Same with KA-50 in the GAME MODE or any other one. If Gazelle would be such in GAME MODE, no one would care if someone loves it to play in such mode. 

 

On 5/9/2021 at 9:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

They totally don't get the angle of the discussions and criticism about it, that this is not what helicopter flying in DCS really means and that it is a degradation of what the other helicopter modules stand for.

 

No they don't. And that is the worrying part as there are more people who enters to DCS World now than ever before. Because we have now more than just KA-50 and A-10C, the audience needs to know that what are the expected quality from DCS World. But people who want to go for the realism and the technicalities gets often attacked with "Rivet Counters" and such because majority doesn't care about small details, they just want something fancy, story like experiences or stick to some specific moment in the history that DCS World should present. 

 

 

 

  • Like 1

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

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fri13 said:

But people who want to go for the realism and the technicalities gets often attacked with "Rivet Counters" and such because majority doesn't care about small details, they just want something fancy, story like experiences or stick to some specific moment in the history that DCS World should present. 


I have to say, this is a growing trend. Problem starts when there is a technical discussion. Players who expect realism are getting mocked or hit with arguments like
"im having a lots of fun, just play" or "it's good enough for me". Good for you, but it doesent help the developers further improve the product for your benefit.        

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, and it probably goes the other way too with plenty of people who also think that "rivet counting" derails too many threads, like the one adjacent this which just got locked.

 

It's a big game and a big forum - there's definitely room for both discussions and many approaches to the game.

  • Like 2

CPU:5600X | GPU:RTX2080 | RAM:32GB | Disk:860EVOm.2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just found this page packed with information about helicopter flight dynamics (needs to be translated from german). It's the most profound compilation of knowledge in one place that i've ever seen. If you are able to understand this, you'll see the flaws in the Gazelle module very clearly and appreciate much more what ED's helicopter modules bring to the table. 
https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=&sl=de&tl=en&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nva-flieger.de%2Findex.php%2Ftheorie%2Faerodynamik%2Fhs%2Fgrundlagen.html


Edited by RealDCSpilot
  • Like 1

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 5/9/2021 at 7:52 AM, RealDCSpilot said:

They totally don't get the angle of the discussions and criticism about it, 

To be honest, a lot of people DO get it, even if they don't have FFB.  

Your statement has a bit of a gatekeeping scent to it, that unless people had FFB and experienced your problems then they didn't understand.  

 

Face it, the majority of customers on DCS do not own FFB sticks, or even centered sticks with extensions.  

To ignore that is to do the same thing you accuse others of doing.  

 

Every DCS module has to be developed for table mount, short sticks with longer sticks as a secondary.   

The game doesn't have to be even more exclusionary than it is.  

 

If Polychop are supplying table top sticks to actual ALAT pilots and the pilots are telling them it "feels ok" then can they really be blamed for not knowing themselves?  

Look at all the actual pilots in DCS that focus helos, like Casmo, Hell_Gato, Barundus, and Gimbal who have come out and stated clearly that it is very twitchy, but that they compensate, like all real pilots do to differences between airframes and types.  

 

I've been in the same type of helicopter and airframe and had them both handle like they were made by different companies.  

I don't care if the stick is 5 degrees to the right or left of the other for any given manoeuvre, or that it lacked power in comparison, it was my role to adjust.  

Same with the dcs helo modules.  

The hind is out. you can barrel roll it, loop it, and do all sort of other fucking stupid shit with it that is obviously not indicative of a healthy FM, but guess what everyone has done (including you, if you have it) they've compensated.  

I have no doubt that the initial brutality it's been treating inexperienced players with is going to get smoothed by ED, to make it easier on them. Exactly like their preferential treatment of short sticks on tables. Exactly like them toning down VRS. 

 

The problem a lot of people "don't get the angle" on is what is the real problem you have?  
What about the FM stops you from actually piloting it or doing things in the game that other modules do?  
Can you fly it? Can you navigate it? Can you utilise weapons or complete tasks in it?  
Their attitude is "If you can do those, then what is the issue?"  and it is equally valid as yours in your criticism of it.

 

Yes, we've all seen the videos from several years ago of flying upside down, but that's like complaining the devs in GTA didn't model cars sinking in water properly if you landed in a river or something like that.  It just something you don't intend doing if you're serious about "realism" flying and it's not something any dev would seriously claim to spending time thinking about.   

It's exactly like the hind is right now with its loops and rolls. "We didn't model what would happen when you loop a hind because you're not meant to be doing it!"  

If it's "wrong" then all they will do is add a code switch (like PC did) that goes something like if inverted then main_rotor_eject_and_die_in_flames.

 

I don't think the FM is perfect. In fact I think it's lacking in a lot of aspects, but that's mainly down to me and my equipment and my general enjoyment of its role in the DCS environment as a whole. 
People like those in Black Shark Den, who demand a high standard from pilots and modules, seem to do just fine with it but this rests largely on them running scenarios that favour its role. 
There's too few servers that utilize it properly, and too few campaigns written for it for me to derive pleasure from it like the others.


I hope they do get it right, with the importing of the Kiowa FM interface replacing the code layer they had to apply to get where they have with the Gazelle.  

Rewriting that code layer tells us that even they think they hit a theoretical and realistic limit to it and it needs to be wiped to play properly with DCS as it currently stands.  

Hopefully they've learnt their lesson and I think they have because all communications appear to tell me that they don't just hope to sell the Kiowa to DCS players, but to Bell themselves which will have a higher selling price for them but also indicates a requirement for a much higher fidelity model.  

 

They've basically got one last chance.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, WillyPete said:

What about the FM stops you from actually piloting it or doing things in the game that other modules do?  
Can you fly it? Can you navigate it? Can you utilise weapons or complete tasks in it?  
Their attitude is "If you can do those, then what is the issue?"  and it is equally valid as yours in your criticism of it.

If that's where you are coming from then yes, you don't get the angle. You're still not able to differentiate between a good or bad helicopter FM, even if you have already 4 perfect examples from ED in front of your eyes.
With the Mi-24P, ED has proven the 4th time now, how a helicopter should work in DCS. If PC would want to make it easy for beginners, they should include something like the "Control Helper" option from the Hind for the Gazelle and this would be the mode her current 5 year old FM would fit to. It's like a remote controlled AI pilot that does all the thinking for you. I prefer to be in full control, like with Huey, Ka-50, Mi-8 and Mi24P and their respective flight model options under "Special Options".
 

 

17 hours ago, WillyPete said:

They've basically got one last chance.

Yep, that's how it is.

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, WillyPete said:

To be honest, a lot of people DO get it, even if they don't have FFB.  

Your statement has a bit of a gatekeeping scent to it, that unless people had FFB and experienced your problems then they didn't understand.  

 

Face it, the majority of customers on DCS do not own FFB sticks, or even centered sticks with extensions.  

To ignore that is to do the same thing you accuse others of doing.  

 

Every DCS module has to be developed for table mount, short sticks with longer sticks as a secondary.   

The game doesn't have to be even more exclusionary than it is.  

 

If Polychop are supplying table top sticks to actual ALAT pilots and the pilots are telling them it "feels ok" then can they really be blamed for not knowing themselves?  

Look at all the actual pilots in DCS that focus helos, like Casmo, Hell_Gato, Barundus, and Gimbal who have come out and stated clearly that it is very twitchy, but that they compensate, like all real pilots do to differences between airframes and types.  

 

I've been in the same type of helicopter and airframe and had them both handle like they were made by different companies.  

I don't care if the stick is 5 degrees to the right or left of the other for any given manoeuvre, or that it lacked power in comparison, it was my role to adjust.  

Same with the dcs helo modules. 

...

The problem a lot of people "don't get the angle" on is what is the real problem you have?  
What about the FM stops you from actually piloting it or doing things in the game that other modules do?  
Can you fly it? Can you navigate it? Can you utilise weapons or complete tasks in it?  
Their attitude is "If you can do those, then what is the issue?"  and it is equally valid as yours in your criticism of it.

 

Gonna toss in my two cents on the matter.

I've been flying with both an FFB stick (with centering removed entirely via a 3rd party application since the PC FFB is still completely broken, what's up with that anyways?) and switched to a regular centering stick as of late because it has better precision for flying real low.

Even a regular centering stick it feels really wonky because just because it self-centers doesn't mean that you can't hold it in a particular position (until you trim it), which works great in any heli module except the Gazelle where you are forced to either return to center or pitch/roll until you flip over.

 

That's why it's not about rivet counting at all, but about diverging entirely from heli flight behaviour. We're talking about the equivalent of a racing sim where there is zero wheel centering support, and then you'll get used to the wrong behaviour and gotta re-adjust yet again when in a sim that actually has it.

 

Sure, I've adapted to its quirky behaviour in order to fly it. It flies perfectly fine. The systems work alright (still hate the arbitrary Viviane "locking" behaviour).

But that is a terrible criteria to go for, because then I'd might as well have saved myself the hundreds of dollars spent on modules and just play the Arma 3 helis, or War Thunder, or pretty much whatever else, because there the helis also fly fine and systems work. It's a matter of fidelity and paying for it.

18 hours ago, WillyPete said:

Yes, we've all seen the videos from several years ago of flying upside down, but that's like complaining the devs in GTA didn't model cars sinking in water properly if you landed in a river or something like that.  It just something you don't intend doing if you're serious about "realism" flying and it's not something any dev would seriously claim to spending time thinking about.   

It's exactly like the hind is right now with its loops and rolls. "We didn't model what would happen when you loop a hind because you're not meant to be doing it!"  

If it's "wrong" then all they will do is add a code switch (like PC did) that goes something like if inverted then main_rotor_eject_and_die_in_flames.

 

I don't think the FM is perfect. In fact I think it's lacking in a lot of aspects, but that's mainly down to me and my equipment and my general enjoyment of its role in the DCS environment as a whole. 
People like those in Black Shark Den, who demand a high standard from pilots and modules, seem to do just fine with it but this rests largely on them running scenarios that favour its role. 
There's too few servers that utilize it properly, and too few campaigns written for it for me to derive pleasure from it like the others.

Agreed. The extreme maneuver examples of a "bad FM" never deserved as much attention as they got, and it's silly to expect the developers to do backflips in their codes just to account for all these instances.

 

18 hours ago, WillyPete said:

I hope they do get it right, with the importing of the Kiowa FM interface replacing the code layer they had to apply to get where they have with the Gazelle.  

Rewriting that code layer tells us that even they think they hit a theoretical and realistic limit to it and it needs to be wiped to play properly with DCS as it currently stands.  

Hopefully they've learnt their lesson and I think they have because all communications appear to tell me that they don't just hope to sell the Kiowa to DCS players, but to Bell themselves which will have a higher selling price for them but also indicates a requirement for a much higher fidelity model.  

 

They've basically got one last chance.

The Bell QA process does give hope. Personally I'm gonna hold out on the Kiowa until either it is truly verified as being stellar, or the Gaz gets fixed. Fool me once.

But I'm not a fan of how the Gaz was supposed to be developed in tandem with the Kiowa, whereas now it looks like they've backtracked and aren't touching it until afterwards anyways.


Edited by Sephyrius
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Sephyrius said:

Fool me once.

Yup. One chance.

 

At the end of it, if the customer isn't satisfied *even after all the good things* then something needs to change.  

I think it's an artefact of an early era of DCS, where people thought that modelling and variety (3 different variants) was more important than fidelity and close integration with the DCS code base.  

If they had the ability to hand over FFB and related interface input to the DCS code then it might have fared better, but they had to add a layer of their own to accomplish it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RealDCSpilot said:

even if you have already 4 perfect examples from ED in front of your eyes.

To be fair, it was the second helicopter to be released. The only other helo with which it could be compared at the time was the huey due to the KA-50 being a completely different animal.  

 

The huey is still a whack flight model (it should definitely not let me do what I do with it), and only belsimtek seem to have modelled inertia properly, bringing that knowledge to the hind.  
I'm okay with the huey as it is, even with the obvious lack of inertia and it's very forgiving state. It allows new players top get a lot of fun. Empty servers are shit.

They need to bottle what Belsimtek have created, and force all 3rd party devs to drink it down and follow its footsteps.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/30/2021 at 11:07 AM, Sephyrius said:

Even a regular centering stick it feels really wonky because just because it self-centers doesn't mean that you can't hold it in a particular position (until you trim it), which works great in any heli module except the Gazelle where you are forced to either return to center or pitch/roll until you flip over.

 

That's why it's not about rivet counting at all, but about diverging entirely from heli flight behaviour. We're talking about the equivalent of a racing sim where there is zero wheel centering support, and then you'll get used to the wrong behaviour and gotta re-adjust yet again when in a sim that actually has it.

 

Okay, update.  

So I thought I'd load it up and fly again this morning, (I mostly use the other helos because they simply do more of what the Gaz does, on servers) and while this is anecdotal and a sample size of one, it's definitely "quirkier" than I remember it being prior to the Hind update.  
I've double checked all settings, and they're as they should be.  

The obvious difference to me is that I killed myself on lift-off multiple times, using the same technique as always. Really frustrating. 
Then I discovered it rises to hover without moving the cyclic.  

That never was the case before, and completely alien to how I know how to fly and how I've flown this module before.  
The standard pulling a bit of rear and right cyclic does not seem to be needed any more for take off. Perfectly level without any input.  
The cyclic diamond is on the middle of the cross in the controls indicator.  Trying to "fly" it off the FARP in a manner that you normally would resulted in a dynamic rollover. 
It might be wind, I didn't bother deep testing but used the Caucasus quick action tank mission. Will have to verify on a self-built testing mission.   

Next, anti-torque requirements seem to be massively reduced.  From personal experience flying fenestron equipped helicopters this is way off anyway (but something a lot of sim devs get wrong), but much more so than previous.  

I'm barely putting in any right pedal. A trainer like the Cabri G2 uses nearly 4/5 of its right pedal input when at the hover, nose into wind.  
And it's linear input, not logarithmic as all Fenestron tail rotors require.   

 

Last observation (I'm sure there are more, but I just did a quick flight) is that a centered stick (so no forward pressure of cyclic) with no trim flies a stable 100 kph.  
This doesn't happen, and previously was not the case from my previous experience with the same hardware and setup.  

 

It would appear that it's been made more spring centered table stick, with twist TR, than it was before.  

Once I stopped trying to "fly" it as muscle memory and real life experience has taught me, and I just tried to steer it like a novice would, it was piss easy.  

Perhaps the inputs ED code is sending from a static and centered stick to the module are much more "stabilised".  

 

So after this update I've shifted from "It's quirky but does the job" to "Does not reflect the physical world." in my attitude to the module.     

I'm going to have to triple and double check all module settings, because this truly is wonky to me now.  

I was prepared to give the devs leeway on it based on previous performance, but I think that the patch has cause a landmark deviance in how their interface works with it.  

If it is the case that the latest patch causes issues with their input coding then I'm not surprised they've gone radio silent and are spending a long time reworking their Kiowa.  

We definitely can't have ED code up two modules every time there's a patch.


Edited by BIGNEWY
1.1 profanity
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know it's not much of your personal opinion, more like thinking loud, so please don't take it personally. I'm arguing arguments (not exactly yours, I guess).

 

20 hours ago, WillyPete said:

The problem a lot of people "don't get the angle" on is what is the real problem you have?  
What about the FM stops you from actually piloting it or doing things in the game that other modules do?  
Can you fly it? Can you navigate it? Can you utilise weapons or complete tasks in it?  
Their attitude is "If you can do those, then what is the issue?"  and it is equally valid as yours in your criticism of it.

 

It it NOT equally valid, because it is clearly inferior.

Fortunately ED are well aware that DCS is mainly being written (not only, but mainly) for rivet counters, otherwise other software products would look better: low (or lower) price, lots of planes included, planes are balanced for "rewarding multiplayer experience", this that and what not. I'm not laughing at that - if that's what someone likes, great - go get it. Many do and they're happy campers... even to the point where a specific "fly game" is merely a Super Mario in aeroplane's disguise.

Pesonally I find such games revolting and I'd rather spend my time picking my nose than "flying" Super Mario, but while some people hate spinach, others like it. No problem...
No problem... until another messiah who "genetically knows better" comes and tells you to like (and shut up) someting you hate. (I'm talking about denigrating rivet counting.)

 

This place here feels like an oasis for a minority of forever grumpy "nitpicky bastards" a.k.a. "rivet counters", freaks, nerds and other highly suspicious types. Actually, at least part of ED people belong to that bunch, too 🙂
And you can actually enjoy DCS and scream about the wrong number of rivets at the same time, that's normal.

 

Now, the argument that since you can barrel roll and loop (and do other "stupid sh*t"), it's equally good if we can "just fly it and navigate it" is wrong, too. Flying outside of envelope, going ballistic etc. has been a very general problem in sims since I can remember. I'm not saying it's cool that you can do loops, no (although there are serious technical problems on the way if you want to overcome such limitations), but if flying WITHIN the envelope is borked, it's worse by a 100 miles.
Simply put the argument is this: "Since we don't get FM's 100% accurate, than 30% is as good as 60%". It's not. 0.6 is bigger than 0.3. Twice bigger. What's the point in arguing about it?

 

Here folks agree to 60% correct, hardly, just because they can't get any more elsewhere (but they keep ranting that 70% would be, barely, acceptable minimum - which is normal, too), but if someone wants them to agree to spinach (30%) because it flies nice, you can navigate and so on - it's disgusting. There are great spinach games elsewhere. And ED must be perfectly aware of that, and besides... they don't seem to like spinach, either. I mean personally, even if we put business matters aside.

 

So, the point is: if you like 30%, NO PROBLEM. But if you tell those who "outright demand" 60% to shut up, it is a problem.

 

Disclaimer: I took 30, 60 and 100 out of thin air.

 

i7-8700K 32GB 2060(6GB) 27"@1080p TM Hawg HOTAS TPR TIR5 SD-XL 2xSD+ HC Bravo button/pot box

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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