fapador

@EvilBert VRNot in the topic, but 4790k and DDR4 is impossible setup (signature)

Mast bumping is off in DCS Huey. It happens way too easily when flying reasonably aggressively (within flight envelope) and I have been told so by real operators who fly the Huey even today in the Helleinic Army Airforce. Try flying the maneuver in this video here at 2:02 : A mild forth and back "swinging" motion followed by an aggressive nose pushdown. Its nearly impossible in DCS... Insta-Mast bump, if you push the nose down... This effect is very complicated to tune Its not reasonable to occure when you push the nosedown at such low speeds even approaching 0 knots like its happening now. This kinda of problems have been discussed many times in the past. Maybe it gets further tweaked as a byproduct from the further expected engine model refinements. Maybe..., I have no hopes of this happening anytime soon though. f.

I am sorry, but I dont have the luxury to invest(any more) time on modules that are still pending significant fixes, especially in the FM area . I also dont have time to reply to at least implicative comments if not offensive.... Good for you if you are satisfied with the current state of the module. It doesnt mean its the same for everyone else and remember that everyone is free to have their own opinion.

Again, we expect a new flight model update for the Gazelle... Is this ever gonna end? It didn't flew good enough then. It doesn't fly good enough even now. As a result I have "shelved" mine untill further notice Lets hope the next update delivers something good at last. Sorry in advance if my comment is to be interpreted as "salty"

I understand your doubts,.... but trust me the new g-onset is much more realistic and far more correct than the previous. I have experience on aircraft manufacturers sim and I can say that pulling g's in DCS as of now is almost exactly the same. Personally, I am happy with the update. ED has nailed it and I am quite a tough guy to be satisfied with such things. I have to mention though, in order to be exact and fair that there are other aspects of the viper fm that can be still improved further, but that is for another topic.

Thank you too BIGNEWY, I cannot agree more!

Its funny because some group of people supported the previous fm by saying things like: its not so bad, you need to build muscle memory, add curves etc and other claims in an effort to defend the product. Now that the new fm is out they do the same all over again only this time all this applies to the new fm... I dont aim to offend anyone and certainely not the developers. Personally I agree that the fm needs more work. All Dcs modules Fm's actually can improve as none is 100% accurate. Matching a Fm Is like trying to match a color 100% by eye but 100 times harder due to volume of research, study and various complex calculations. In conclusion,If the Fm's were perfect then Lockheed, Boeing, USAF etc would hire ED themselves to train their pilots and the sim would be FAA aproved at least... Edit: My bad for mistakenly referring to @RealDCSpilot apparently he wasnt involved in any of this.

0:17. He ascents aggresively... . You are right on this, he doesnt get out of ground effect perhaps entirely* but why does that exactly matter to you? * Ground effect region is usually 1/2 rotor diameter I am sorry if you didnt find the video interesting. Next time I will make sure not to disturb by tagging you and save you the trouble of ignoring me...

If only, ED improves Engine model according to advice given by @Tim_Fragmagnet the DCS Huey has the potential of becoming one of the best helicopter FM for household pc simulation the world has seen to date. The biggest problem for me with the fm so far is: A: All the problems tim has mentioned already regarding performance B: The slip indicator not working properly C : mast bumping and rotor seperation occuring way too easily. Although this might get fixed as a byproduct of the above adjustments (I suspect it might have something to do with incorrect lift/thrust causing incorrect disk loading unloading and causing mast bump). As of now its impossible to perform these maneuvers shown in this video here (pushover seems doable with no airspeed) and any aggressive flying generally... Ps @SMH this is a great video (mind the low vhs quality) showing powerful climb rates with zero airspeed in various segments... Watch from the start. I think it might change your misconception regarding this behavior.

Also without being SME on rotorcraft (I am a fixed wing pilot). 2400 fpm at max torgue doesn't sound extreme for a military helicopter. I might be wrong though, maybe @Tim_Fragmagnet will know better as I havent researched this aspect a lot.

I care for more realistic pedal inputs. I use the colective gently not like a car e/handbrake so dont care much if its not that accurate in that regime. I dont even know if in reality this would be even possible as the rotor rpm might drop as the disk loading increases too abruptly.

Can we expect any improvement on Huey Fm in the upcoming patch?

Its not a Pc joystick issue and if we include fixed wing aircraft in the conversation, consider this: there are some aircraft with short sticks that are perfectly flyable in the Real World.. As a matter of fact, the short stick thing sounds more like an excuse as well as reason to sell extremely overpriced joystick extensions. There is also an easy solution for ED, which is to implement a MSFS style axis reactivity tuning option which essentially slows down the response without suggesting people to use stupid curves causing nonlinearity and worsening the handling. They can remedy this once and for all.... Now concerning the Huey, the problem is there are some, not insignificant wrong behaviors and issues in the flight model. Behaviors Totally Unintuitional for good flight training. They have been reported over the years, yet the Huey module mostly due to its age doesn't get attention as of yet. The new Engine model is a step in the correct direction but there are other issues as well, maybe even more critical.. My personal opinion, as always..., is that all ok! comments like yours, don't encourage ED to improve things but rather let them be. There is no evolvement to come out of this forum ethos. I always push for more, for better. but that's just me...

Care showing us your ingame settings? I have a second PC with 4790k but it is always stuterring even with MT and medium low settings on Caucasus.

I disagree. Flight model wise, I have flown Greek Army Huey Simulator Two different versions both CAE simulator and a Greek build, cheaper variant and its not like DCS. I have also well respected friends which are Greek Army Huey operators who had a go on DCS Huey and disliked the flightmodel. I have reported this couple years ago. For more details search for one of my previous posts in which I gave a little report/summary. Now concerning the elevators, I wonder if it also affects the Fm on Flight. Its possible when the FM was created this data wasn't taken in account, And I can definitely tell you that aerodynamically wise 1.3 degrees is nothing insignificant. This might also explain weird behavior of the current Fm requiring a lot of cyclic offset to fly Level at cruise speeds. @Tim_Fragmagnet Good catch! Your devotion on the Huey module is extraordinary.

The pedals and brakes are FBW using force transducers as sensors. The status of the hydraulics has absolutely no effect on the feel of the pedals (which are very stiff and barely move just like the stick). Dude no need to go crazy with theories. I am telling you they go dead straight on the LM sim and also the brakes move quite a lot. I don't know how exactly the FBW pedals feel on the real jet. I have never flown one and I never will. However I highly doubt they don't move at all like you seem to think, at least nowhere like the stick. Because I remeber having seen a cockpit video showing clearly the pedals moving quite a lot during a windy takeoff. I will post it immediately I unbury it from my archive. Also its not a FBW thing you are convinced to believe. Hydraulically powered Pedals cannot be moved not even in small helicopters like the OH-58 for example without the engine being turned on. A characteristic which I happen to have witnessed first hand, not only on the OH-58 but on many other fixed wing aircraft too which make use of hydraulically operated control surfaces.

Also even If you were able to climb onto a F16 cockpit, and test those Pedals you wouldn't be able to do so... They don't move not even an inch without hydraulic power.

Yes Indeed. But the Pedals are also supported by those rails and cannot break free individually from them. Those Rails also support the toe rests assembly so its sturdy. I am 100% sure the pedals move back and forth and don't rotate as currently implemented. At least that's the way they are on Lockheeds Martin Simulator which I highly doubt is false, and any different than a real Viper. If you still don't believe what I contend, here is a picture showing the Pedals slightly depressed were it can be seen that the stay parallel. Infact I am not aware of any modern era Plane (post WWII) nowadays having WWI style Pedals.

It also shows two parallel rails...

They move back and forth, They don't rotate.

I can back up these claims, as I have tried Lockheed's Martin very own F16 simulator that Airforces use all around the world. The f16 over there is much more sluggish on various setups and loads . Although I have been told that DCS f16 matches the performance data which I also see it indeed does (by numbers), I still find it flies like a rocket boosted strapped aircraft. I don't know what the fault exactly is, it might be something off with the speed sense of the DCS enviroment (ground appearing to move too fast) or something else more extreme like possibly the published charts are not realistic or even possibly purposely false. At this point I state that The other f16 sim publically available also is not perfect in that aspect and is of similar behavior. Take my advice or leave it. Personally I don't even care as there is no chance the FM will change despite anything said on a topic or thread. For example. there are other more serious FM issues highlighted by various posts with data proofs, over the years. They have still not been remedied. Its the same not only for this module but in others too. Personally what bothers me the most in the current DCS FM is the unrealistic excessive attitude drop when banking wings more than 15 degrees like in a Knife Edge maneuver for example. Its awful even at empty loads. But then again, whatever...

I am a pilot...

And yes, I Did check and all my numbers are valid... http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/fw190/fw190d9test.html

Also some Aerodynamical P-51 vs Fw-190 comparison it can be easily seen that FW wins everywhere... he statistics don't explain why the P-51, which not only fares worse at the factors below (with the exception of the thickness), but was also heavier (Fw-190 Max. Weight: 4,839 kg versus P-51D Max. Weight: 5,489 kg) and had less power (Fw-190 2,240 HP versus P-51D 1,790 HP) , able to fly at roughly the same max speed (Fw-190 Max. Speed: 704 km/h. versus P-51D Max.Speed: 703 km/h), and rate of climb (Fw-190 Max. Climb: 1110 m/min versus P-51D Max. Climb: 1011 m/min)? Airfoil Thickness Ratio - Higher is better. Fw-190: Root= 15.3% Tip= 9% . P-51D: Root= 14.8 or 15% Tip= 12%. Wing Aspect Ratio - Higher is better. Fw-190: 6.02. P-51D: 5.81 . Lift-loading - Lower is better. Fw-190: 154.33 kg/sq.m. (31.5 lbs/sq.ft.) P-51D: 181.73 kg/sq.m. (37.18 lbs/sq.ft.) Power-loading - Lower is better. Fw-190: 1.91 kg/hp. (4.22 lbs/hp.) P-51D: 2.81 kg/hp. (6.2 lbs/hp.)

Completely false statements.... Also the P-51's wing has a CL-max of 1.28 *Freeflow*, at idle that is probably 1.47, while the Fw-190's is probably around 1.80. There's no doubt what so ever that the Fw-190D-9 will outturn the P-51D, although not by a whole lot, but the Dora-9 does turn tighter nonetheless. The reason being that the Dora-9 has both a lower lift-loading and power-loading, as-well as lighter elevator stick forces at high speeds. Oscar Boesch from Sturmstaffel 1, also stated that in a very tight and high speed turn the Fw-190 only required one hand on the stick. This allowed the pilot to get a much better feel for what the aircraft was doing, allowing him to fly at the edge of the envelope at all speeds. As a matter of fact, the FW-190 experienced an almost dangerous reduction of stick forces at high speeds. No loss of control, just an increased chance to stress the airframe. I am LMAO. Cause its like saying air speed doesnt increase lift....