fapador

Edit : The only plane currently that yaws well is the spitfire

@kablamoman "massive"? Post video pls Dont be foolled by the slip indicator, its directly affected by roll. Yaw action and effect is non existent. Also the spitfire has comparable size rudder and engine yet it yaws 4 times more than bf109, There is no way that the 109 is modelled correctly. Maybe @Yo-Yo has some input on this matter.

Why is No adverse Yaw effect present on all the WWII planes. When rolling on one side you must correct with opposite rudder pedal . No warbird shows this behavior not even neutral Flight ball but exactly the opposite as nearly always needs rudder input towards the rolling side. Something is going very wrong with the FM's here.

The yaw effect is not implemented right it should yaw a couple more degrees before rolling( wing dihedral should make the wing less prone to yaw roll), because californian giant slip is impossible currently. Also adverse yaw is non existent

In my opinion the plane rolls to easily or too early when you apply left or right rudder making it impossible to slip. the rudder acts almost like ailerons on the fuselage

or a lack of an accurate spiral wash model in combination with the fact that moment of inertia calculation effect currently only exists on the p47 roll axis

I think the yaw effect is too subtle

@grafspeeNot quite what I am asking. I understand how the throttle and governor works on a constant speed propeller. I am asking if an engine torgue and prop load model is present or if the engine is charted properly (relationship) because It seems very simplistic currently or I am not sure if it exists at all.

Is engine torgue represented dynamically in all the range of rpm's? because in reality it has a peak at the middle range and drops at higher rpm reducing p factor at full throttle. Currently it seems its pretty linear. You open throttle and torgue effect raises even more at higher rpm.

It has other issues though, at level flight it tends to roll. It also has a fuselage that sits too horizontal like a UH-1C and is not angled properly in relation to the skids. I also think it feels too stable and heavy, this might be caused by a bunch of other limitations of the x-plane engine like lack of pre-cone and undersling rotor representation or over-efficient props producing large amounts of thrust that X-plane tends to calculate.

For me physics/flight dynamics are the most important factor. The models should feel natural and respond realistic in a certain degree. I have done my research all these years and currently I can certainly say that no perfect rotorcraft PC home sim exists in that respect.( Yes even Xplane has problems at straight flight with weird roll issues and lack of yaw effect and spiral wash prop modelling. There is no way to address this even with workarounds in PlaneMaker and in the end for ME produces bad unrealistic results ). Physics development, demands real research, time and resources + educated experienced people. This returns no real value for the devs other than a nice feel and experience for the end user that has a taste for accurate physics and doesn't "fall" in the average consumer category that will never realize that something might be wrong / or question the FM. Even in some warbirds I have doubts for their FM, or the general DCS's prop/wash/torgue model. However I feel that I should mention that what astonishes me the most, is that older attempts such as the unprecedented Janes WWII Fighters have gotten really close in the physics department with the tools available at the time and it still "feels" great. It was developed by EA (so perhaps they had the resources) and real aces contributed to its development just like DCS. For ME Janes WWII is still an unsurpassed jewel of the golden age of the Flight simulation for the PC combat sim enthusiast in that perspective so there is no reason something better more accurate cannot be achieved today. Now for the pedal discrepancy the source might be a collective position/ torgue issue or something in the empennage and the way it's modelled or even a wrong wash calculation. or a combination of the above. Only the creators of the FM know and ONLY THEY can address it. I know its hard and I don't mean to sound salty. As @pbishop mentioned the things they got right are BY FAR many more, but AS A CUSTOMER I want it to be addressed and so should all of us, it's an official licensed Bell product after all. PS: I wouldn't care so much if this discrepancy was on any other module But the HUEY, I totally love this Bird!

Thank you very much. This is great data. Now if only the devs respond quick that would be great. I love the Huey and I want to be at its best in dcs

Other video showing right pedal need. You can get a glimpse on 12th minute

@admiki Wouldnt wind cause the ship to dirft or to turn into the weather requiring correction with antitorgue?

Can you post a video of you flying with right pedal at wind (head and tail) conditions. I cant seem to replicate what you state currently, I dont need any right pedal in any level flight high speed condition.

Other great Video Showing clearly Right Pedal depressed

Everything that can be improved on the DCS Huey has been stated here

directional is yaw. 6.8 inches is the pedal travel

Well this confirms my suspicions that DCS FM is indeed questionable

All the claims here are for no wind, or mild wind conditions. We need someone really experienced preferably an army guy to tell us if right pedal correction is necessary on high speeds above ~90knots. Also the helicopters rigging is very important it should fly like the description on the operation manual but some might be different

Privyet, I have read this post translated. I just want to say that I also feel that the FM of the bf109 especially on the yaw axis feels like a pendilum and very off to me also.

Well I dont want to sound rude here, but it wont be one of the few first times ED has fallen out of schedule. I consider consistency very important as a client. Nevertheless if they want to run on a loose schedule they should try to avoid public announcement of timelines to prevent dissapointment.