iFoxRomeo

Then you are in the minority. The Huey FM is not perfect, but still more of a helicopter than the Gaz. But this is going in circles. I don't believe PC will ever publish a new, authentic FM. I think effort from the users put into this is wasted time.

Danke. Ich halte auch, wie gesagt, sehr viel von Yo-Yo. Hab ich mitbekommen, dass die was dran geschraubt haben. Aber das, was die gemacht haben, war kein fix des Engine Modells. Die haben nur den "quatsch" den sie vor einiger Zeit mit der EGT Damage eingeführt haben, wieder runtergeschraubt. Das Engine Model ist immer noch falsch. Aber das driftet jetzt von diesem Thema hier ab. Ich bin vorhin schon genug abgedriftet. Fox

Die bringen zum einen ein Luftfahrzeug mit variabler Tragflächengeometrie raus, was meines Erachtens nicht einfach zu programmieren sein dürfte, und zweitens "scheinen" mir die Heatblur Devs sehr fleissig zu sein. Denen würde ich eine Hubschrauber FM zutrauen. Yo-Yo hat viel Ahnung von Aerodynamik UND kann programmieren UND ist schon sehr lange in dem Business. Das schätze ich sehr hoch ein. Muss zu meiner eigenen Schande gestehen, dass ich nahezu null Stunden auf der KA-50 habe. Kann ich so jetzt nicht beurteilen. Und die aerodynamischen Feinheiten eines Koax-Hubschraubers sind mir nicht so geläufig wie die eine Hubschraubers mit Haupt- und Heckrotor. Muss mich mal schlau machen. Hip vor Huey. Beide ganz weit vor der Gaz. KA-50 (s.o.) kann ich grad nicht beurteilen. Also ja, die beiden Besten. Ein 60% FM ist weit besser als ein 10% FM. Trotzdem hat ein 60% FM noch Luft nach oben. Diese Zahlen sind nur Hausnummern zur Verdeutlichung dessen, was ich sagen will. Keine Ähnlichkeit zu lebenden Personen.... äh, verfügbaren Modellen. Hip und Huey haben noch Luft nach oben. @rrohde Aufgrund der schon langen engen Zusammenarbeit zwischen BST und ED habe ich die schon immer als eine Company betrachtet. Mit der Hind und der Cobra sind die aber vermutlich genug ausgelastet, dass die nicht noch ne BO dazu brauchen können. Bei VEAO wollte ich zum Ausdruck bringen, dass die leider nicht innerhalb eines vernünftigen Zeitrahmens einen Flieger hinbekommen können, bzw. wohl auch gar nicht mehr wollen. Da spielen dann mMn FM Kenntnisse auch keine Rolle mehr. VEAO ist so derbe abgestürzt.... Leider. @Shagrat Bedrohung von Devs geht gar nicht. Ich finds sehr schade, was mit VEAO passiert ist. Die waren sehr motiviert und enthusiastisch am Anfang. Und jetzt ist quasi alles futsch. Das ist meine subjektive Einschätzung. Zu einem guten FM in einer Simulation gehört auch ein authentisches Damage Model. Die Bo105 hat z.B. ein Limit, das die anderen Hubschrauber in DCS so nicht haben können (also gem. Shop-Beschreibung der PC Gazelle müsste sie auch dieses Limit haben, aber die Beschreibung ist seit early access falsch), weil die Bo ein starres Rotorsystem hat. Ich rede vom Mast-moment. Die Bo105, wie auch ihr Nachfolger Bo108/EC-135 haben Dehnungsmessstreifen am Hauptrotorkopf, um das Moment des Hauptrotors auf den Mast zu messen. Dieses kann am Boden sehr sehr leicht überschritten werden. Auch in der Luft kann es überschritten werden. Das ist möglich, weil diese Rotorsysteme keine Schlaggelenke haben und somit die Kräfte der Rotorblätter direkt auf den Mast wirken. Hat weder die Huey(alt), Hip, Cobra(alt), Hind und auch nicht die Gazelle(oder hat die eine Mastmoment Anzeige?). Aber es ist etwas, das halt die Aufmerksamkeit des Piloten erfordert. Ein Überschreiten der Limits muss in einer Simulation konsequenzen haben. Bei den meisten DCS Hubschraubern muss man auf nahezu gar nichts achten. Überdrehzahl der dynamischen Komponenten; kein Problem. Passiert nix. Overtorque, passiert auch nix. Übertemperatur. Bei der Hip müsst ich das nochmal prüfen. Bei der Huey gibts mittlerweile tatsächlich Konsequenzen. Problem ist nur, dass bei dem echten -13 Triebwerk in der echten Huey extrem selten die Temperatur das erste Limit ist. Da kommt der Torque lange vorher. Vne, fau doch... Hip und Huey interessiert die Vne nicht. Hip bis 1000m pressure altitude absolute Vne: 250km/h(gem. Handbuch von BST). Aber mit 15-20Grad nose down, bekommt man fast 400km/h hin. Läuft.... Also ums klar zu stellen, ich denke nicht, dass man eine ins Detail korrekte Simulation von Sachen ausserhalb des Flight Envelope erwarten sollte. Da sollte ein educated guesswork aber reingepackt werden. Es gibt auch Level D FSTD die das nicht im Detail machen. Aber man bekommt ganz klar mit, wenn man ein Limit zu lange/weit/hoch überschritten hat. Z.B. "friert" der Simulator ein, wenn man ein Lfz Designlimit überschreitet. Bsp: Aktuelle Vne 168KIAS, bei ca. 180KIAS friert der FSTD ein. Also bei gerademal 7,14% Überschreitung der Vne. Wären bei der Hip 268km/h. Fox

Die gute Nachricht ist ja schon mal, dass eben nicht Polychop das Flugmodell erstellen wird. Also besteht Hoffnung, dass es nicht nur wie ein Hubschrauber aussieht, sondern auch so fliegen wird. Mein bevorzugter Dev wär Heatblur. Mit Jester AI und Iceman AI haben die zwei Tools, die äusserst hilfreich wären. Kein Anderer Dev hat was ähnliches vorzuweisen, nichtmal ED. Rein vom FM wär wohl Yo-Yo(ED) am besten geeignet. Belsimtek hat hoffentlich aus der Huey und der Hip gelernt. Eine Steigerung von der Huey zur Hip ist sichtbar, aber da ist noch deutlich Luft nach oben. AvioDev und VEAO könnten dann in 5 Jahren mit der Programmierung anfangen, sobald der AvioJet und die Hawk/Kittyhawk fertig sind. Razbam muss erstmal die 5+ Module und die Map fertigstellen, an welchen die gerade arbeiten. Das klingt vielleicht gehässig, aber mittlerweile hat sich ja weitgehend herauskristallisiert, welcher Dev wie arbeitet, was verspricht und was er davon überhaupt einhalten kann. Fox

And this means I can´t make failures in the missions for modules I don´t have. E.g. I don´t have the Viggen. I can build a mission for it, but I can´t create system failures, because I can´t select "Player". Is this really intended by ED? I really would like to use this feature in MP. Fox

Thank you. Didn't realize this. I wonder why it is limited to SP. Would be useful in MP missions. And when set to AI the failure tab disappears. With client it reappears, but remains empty. Fox

DCS 2.5.3.22652 Open Beta No failures available in the failure tab on every aircraft. Repair didn´t change this. Except SRS, no Mods installed. Anyone else got this? Fox

Sorry, war schlecht formuliert. Ich meinte das Radar in der Nasenspitze der F-86 mit welchem der Abstand zum Zielflugzeug für die Gunsight gemessen wird. Wenn die CC auch sowas hat, würde das erklären, warum die CC RWRs triggert. Denn die F-86 triggert auch RWRs... zumindest hat sie das vor einigen Versionen noch gemacht. Fox

Hat die C-101CC vielleicht ein Radar zur Abstandsmessung, wie z.B. die F-86? Die F-86 triggert auch RWR. Fox

:lol: Haha, sehr geil!

Forced shut down in 2 minutes... strange. What happens if you can't shutdown within 2 minutes? Sabre, sorry as this probably sounds rude, but then you fail to achieve your own goals. The "boring" parts belong to realism as well as the interesting ones. I put this into the same category as INS alignment. If people play your campaign, because they want to have a realistic recreation of procedures and start with a cold dark aircraft, then they should get maximum possible realism and procedures. Otherwise this is no challenge in the category realism. Quickest shutdown in a gaming manner would then be throttles to shut down and battery off. I'm sure your campaigns are challenging, rewarding and fun. But here you traided realism for a artificial challenge, no [your words] "actual A10 pilot would go through". People think these missions are a recreation of realistic procedures, because you promote them this way. It's perfectliy fine to play DCS in a gaming manner. But imho if somebody says "realistic" he/she has then to stick to it. Just my 0,02$. I'm sure it doesn't change anything. But recently more and more things in DCS pop up that claim realism, but fail to be realistic. Fox Quote Sabre-TLA: "Backstory: I've searched the forums but couldn't find a reference to this topic so starting a new thread. The training in DCS-A10C is excellent but what I would like to have is a Flight Qualification Campaign that mimics the training and flight quals of what an actual A10 pilot would go through. Each mission would cover a specific training element and to pass you need to succeed with each mission. At the end of the campaign you would be considered qualified to fly the A-10C in combat. I realize this is a game and you can just jump right into a combat mission but given the realism in this sim I would like to pass a formal qualification test before moving onto combat missions. I've done the research and came up with this model:..."

Do you use a FFB Joystick? That was the problem I had. Once centered, Baro and Rad Alt hold worked fine. Fox

Just an interesting find in the Gazelles Flightmanual. Yes this is from the 341, but I don't think there is a difference to the 342 in this chase, as the 342's SAS can also fail. Fox

:mad: As an option in the options tab, okay. But forcing this ridiculous looking behaviour on everyone is totaly the wrong way. I really can't believe Yo-Yo gave his ok on this. There are enough simple FM/ground handling games one can play. DCS should not go this way. Fox

Not a bug, a feature.... oh, that was a different software. Some people seem to be thin-skinned... Why is there a need to point to other modules for a simple question. Maybe this helps to cool down. General emergency procedures: And IFR equipped version: So for the duration of a flight, the battery should have enough juice. But I don't think it would be rocket science to implement battery life. As there is comparison to other modules: There are modules, that have battery life simulated. For me, that's just another part of the whole picture about the Gazelle. Fox p.s. Schmirco thx, this threat made me look at the Gazelle's flightmanual more closely.

Interesting. So the ALAT stranger himself wrote in this or another forum? Or did you hear from another stranger(B), who claims to know a ALAT stranger? Yes I'm also a stranger for you. But why am I less trustworty than the guy next to me? Think about the motivation each stranger can have. Stranger A, enthusiast, no monetary interest, big interest in correct physics. Stranger B, monetary interest because module development was expensive. A second module is in a later stage of development, so financial interest is high. I'm not sayong stranger B is hungry for money, but he has to feed his family*. Who do you think has an interest in changing the module, and for what reason? * which is perfectly okay. Everyone needs to make money for a living. I would gladly pay for the Gazelle, if the conditions fit. I will buy a Gazelle and donate a Gazelle, if the FM gets plausible. Fox

I completely understand Focha. And I´m close to doing the same. PC, you simply don´t answer these questions. You avoid it like the devil avoids holy water.... Thinking of a SAS from the 60s that can´t be switched off makes my hair stand to the end. A mechanical gyro can´t fail? The consequences of such a construction are fatal. When the gyro gives wrong impules, the helicopter would go berserk, and the pilot can not do anything about it? Remember, the SAS has, according to you, lots of control authority. This makes even less sense if you know that the Gazelle flys perfectly without a SAS(SA341). Either this is a very dangerous construction of a helicopter(not impossible, because humans made already lots of fatal constructions), or you are trying to hide something. What has the higher probability? Decide for yourself. I know, the shitstorm will come over me now. Dimitriov your example is just completely useless. A Ferrari is a special physical construction for itself? Respect....:doh: Please don´t tell astrophysicsts that they can´t research stars by watching pictures and videos of stars. You interpret stuff. This discussion is about the FM, and only the FM. There might be people that say this module is crap, but not me. Do you really think this is fun? No, not a little bit. I´m completely aware that there is extremely lot of work in such a module. Here are a lot of, lets say, enthusiasts with knowledge. They see the module. It is eyecandy!!! Really, I mean it so. It is a beautifully designed reproduction of the exterior and interior of the Gazelle. But then they see how it flys. That is not beautiful. This module simply doesn´t fly like a helicopter. Do I need to have stick time on the Gazelle to see if the PC Gazelle is right or wrong. No I don´t need that, because I´m not talking about how twitchy it is, or how far I have to move the controls, or how much power the engine produces, or how much pedal input is necessary, or how sensitive the airframe is to turbulences, etc.. I(and others) don´t talk about the details. The general behaviour of a helicopter is pretty well known to us enthusiasts. And this general behaviour is missing. Do you understand now what we are talking about? ... but this consumes too much time. I prefer spending my limited spare time flying the other modules. If someone wants to ask me something or discuss about the Gazelle, PM me. I´m going to stop participating in the Gazelles FM discussion. It is useless. I feel like talking to a wall makes more sense. I´m so very disappointed. So much, that no current of future Polychop module will make it into my hangar. I know it doesn´t really bother you. One last thing. Just to put things into perspective. Just taking into account the people I´m aware of, the enthusiasts have at least 25 years of helicopter experience, stick time on at least 10 (TEN) different helicopter types. Take off weight variing from 600kg up to 10.000kg. But who are we enthusiasts, how dare we to say we have an idea of helicopter behaviour... I´m out Fox

Comments in red Polychop. Explaining stuff might be difficult and take a lot of time. But it helps dramatically for the reputation. ED´s Yo-Yo is a fine example for that. And because of him I bought the Yak-52 blind, full price, Persian Gulf, full price, the Hornet, full price(okay I used the bonus from the Yak and PG..), didn´t wait for a sale, just to support ED. I bought 3rd party modules in pre sale, that were a pure disappointment when released(for me personally). Won´t do the same thing again. There are devs that deserve the credit of trust, and some don´t. I honestly ask you to make a step back, take the time, explain with physical justification, why the real Gazelle differs from other Helicopters. This will put a lot of trust in you and will silence the ongoing FM discussion. Fox

Thank you. I agree, except "or they are not at liberty to make the Gazelle's particular design choices public record". Why would Airbushelicopter tell anyone classified information to write a specific software, but not allow the developer to talk about it. The software had to be classified as well. Fox

Actually the helicopter dynamics part of pilots training course is not simplified. It is reduced to explain the principle. After such a course you can´t calculate the forces that appear, but you know what is going on, so you are aware of helicopter specific behaviour. The diagram shows the airflow at the 3 and 9 o´clock position, ignoring the rest of the clock. It is not a 2 bladed rotor that I painted. It is about the principle. The number of blades is not defined in my drawing. The number of rotorblades a helicopter has depends on several factors. But the principle is always the same. The details differ. More blades means among other things that, as you mentioned, the distance between the blades gets smaller and can cause more turbulences. But the advantages of more blades overweight normally the problems it can cause. I know of a helicopter with 1(yes a single) blade and a helicopter with 7 rotorblades. The Bo 103 is this single blade helicopter and e.g. the CH-53K has 7 blades. So the drawing remains the same for the principle of a 3 bladed mainrotor, when a blade is at the 3 or 9 o´clock position. The blades change their pitch with every revolution. It´s the sum of the forces along each individual blade and all blades together that creates the amount of lift and direction of lift all the time and at every position. It is a very dynamic process and best explained via-a-vis. That´s what makes a helicopter so different from a fixed wing aircraft. Does that answer your question halfway? Fox p.s. just realized I drew a ccw rotor. Ofc the Gazelle has a cw rotor.

Okay. You´re free to have that way of thinking. I was provocative. Now I got the response, and it tells me a lot. I certainly don´t "look very glad of it... Like if kind of discovered some rare and misunderstood stuff". It makes me sad. Honestly. I wish I wouldn´t spent time posting here, but instead would love to fly the Gazelle with authentic behaviour. Did/Do you fly helicopters? What does qualify you to know helicopter dynamics? I can ask you the same questions. A non pilot, but "helicopter module dev" is per se qualified to say this is right and this is wrong, but a non module dev person with knowledge in helicopter dynamics is not? Very strange attitude. It is neither necessary to be a pilot nor a module dev to see these flaws. But this doesn´t help. Facts might help. I showed(simplified, not including all effects) why a helicopter needs corrections with the cyclic when going from hover to cruise. Why is there no need for that in your Gazelle? It doesn´t matter if SAS is on or off. Can you explain that? A "It has a special bladedesign" can not explain this, unless the blade itself changes its shape during one revolution, so that on the advancing side it has a lower ca to counter the increased airflow, and on the retreating side it has a higher ca to produce more lift despite the reduced airflow(such blade don´t exist). And the Gazelle has no individual blade control, has it? (I know prototypes, e.g. in one German CH-53 this was tested, but was used to reduce noise, not to counter d-o-l) If your module had correct calculations of basic helicopter dynamics, then these long ongoing questions about the Gazelle´s flight model would´t be here anymore. No signs of dissymmetry of lift, fly by wire-ish flight behaviour (pitch stop at -45° and 0° as Focha found out). And I even didn´t fly your Gazelle. Just by watching the videos and reading reports of others like Focha I see enough to have a picture of the Gazelle´s FM. Sorry, but for me it doesn´t look like it has basic helicopter dynamics. A SAS from the late 60s would counter dissymmetry of lift(d-o-l)..... even the modern ones don´t do that. These systems do what their name suggest. They sabilize. Against small turbulences and other things. And thus lessen the workload on the pilot flying. Focha would love a SAS in the AS350, as this thing is twitchy like its name says, a squirrel. Especially during hover. These Stability Augmentation Systems have very limited control authority. They do not move cyclic stick. It is between the controls and the swashplate(hydraulics in bigger helos). But they give no feedback to the cyclic stick. An Autopilot(when activated) does counter d-o-l. An Autopilot system does move the controls by changing the stickposition with the trim actuators, but can be pushed over by the pilot all the time. If SAS and AP systems are deactivated (and they have to be deactivatable as every electronic system can fail) then there is only one possible thing that can counter d-o-l. Thats the pilot. Does the pilot have to counter d-o-l in your Gazelle when SAS is deactivated? No. Hence even with you assumption of the SAS countering d-o-l, it is not in your FM even when SAS is disabled. Maybe a bug prevents the correct calculation. I don´t know. But if you say you know helicopter dynamics, then you actually should realize the problem quickly. But you don´t see it. We only get: It feels like the real one. But no explanation. So you claim to know helicopter dynamics, then explain why the Gazelle behaves the way it does and differ so much from other helicopters. Why do I think the SAS does not counter d-o-l. Let´s assume the SAS would counter d-o-l in a way that the cyclic wouldn´t move anymore, but the swashplate is tilted(you acknowleded that d-o-l does exist, so it has to be countered). So you are flying at cruise and you cyclic is still "centered" and not forward. Now the SAS quits due to gyro malfunction. What happens next? Case 1: The SAS "servos" remain fixed in their last position. Everything is fine as long as you don´t want to brake. Because now you have less cyclic stick movement backwards. You don´t have full control authority anymore. Case 2: The SAS "servos" move to the center position. That would cause a severe pitch up during fast fwd cruise. Very bad, don´t you think so? When hands free even worse. Case 3: The SAS "servos" float inside their margin of control authority. Look at the sticktravel of the SA341 I posted. This would become a deadzone. Can you control a helicopter with such a huge deadzone? For me it doesn´t seem to be a good idea to counter d-o-l with the SAS. Whoops! Clumsy smurf has finished.

Just out of curiosity, do you guys have a source for this? Fox

Quick and dirty. Yeah I know I know, it looks like a 5 year old kid did it. And it took me days to draw this :D I didn't want to use copyright protected material. Simplified and not covering all effects. But it shows why you have to compensate changes in lift distribution with stick forward when going from hover to forward flight. It is a function of lift. It simply doesn't matter how the blades are constructed as long as they produce lift. This effect will always happen. It won't be compensated by SAS. Fox

No it's still no insult. So because PC coded the Gazelle, they know everything about it or helicopter aerodynamics? And they cannot make mistakes? Lack of respect? Lack of respect would be if you know there is something wrong, but don't care about it. The people here don't get paid, but because of enthusiasm they want to help to enhance PC's product. It might hurt at first, admitting there is something wrong, but in the long therm it would improve PC's credibility. Again, noone here claims to know how many cm the stick would travel. But the complete absence of stick travel shows that dissymmetry of lift is not in the FM code, or at least not active. If you don't have to compensate dissymmetry of lift, you are not flying a helicopter. It is the major difference in flying a fixed wing aircraft compared to rotary wing aircraft. And a SAS is a stabilisation system. It is not meant to compensate this phenomenon. It compensates for local short therm air turbulences and to reduce workload for the pilot flying. For example the Huey's flybar is a kind of SAS, but a mechanical one. It's okay if it "feels" fine for you. But for me it wouldn't, because it lacks fundamental parts of what makes a helicopter so specific. OT: Transition courses include handling of the aircraft. But this is the smaller part. Normal-, Emergency procedures, instruments, performance, system knowledge and system operation are the important things there. Someone in the transition course knows how an aircraft flys and how to fly, and e.g. in the airliner section, you don't have to teach IFR procedures, but how to use this specific aircraft's instruments for that. Fox

I'm sorry for your hard feelings. But look at the other DCS Helicopters, then you will see how one could implement stick travel to non-ffb users. And how is trim realized in fixed wing aircraft in DCS? There are ways to do this, but not the way it is in the Gazelle. And saying that somebody has no knowledge about something is just a statement. I didn' t say he is stupid or something similar. So calm down. Do not assume things. This is not the M2000 discussion. If I don't not a thing, and there are lots of things I don't know, I ask those who know it. And if there are conflicting statements I compare them and ask the sources again, why one source says a and the other source says b. In this case Polychop doesn't compare the physics, but the feelings. If a developer claims that his product's FM is in the AFM category, and "rotor lift and drag are calculated in realtime", then the cutomers are allowed to compare it to reality, imho. And in this case it doesn't fit. To put things into perspective, before someone says "it's just a game". This software is called Digital Combat Simulator. So a big part of this software is simulation. And just today Eagle Dynamics themselves released a new aircraft where the focus lies on "simulation" where the "combat" part is completely missing. The physics in a 727 and a 380 are the same. The differences are in the details. And so is the situation of the Gazelle to other helicopters. Fox