Drakoz

The new patch fixes this issue for me. The Alarm light now comes in any case where the throttle lever is not fully forward, and now gives positive feedback as to why Auto Hover or Auto Pilot functions aren't working. So this means, for those having trouble getting Auto Hover or Auto Pilot features to work, if it is due to the throttle not being pushed all the way forward, or due to a noisy pot on an analog axis which you are using to control the throttle lever, now the main Alarm light will come on when the throttle lever is not all the way forward, or flicker on/off rapidly due to a noisy pot, giving you positive feedback that something is wrong. Thanks Polychop!

I can't comment on having an extension, except to say that having one will allow you to use less curve and still get the same result or feel regarding fine control. Plus, you can get that feel, using less curve than with a shorter stick. Hence what Dvst was talking about. Finding the right settings and extension to mimic the actual aircraft stick. Ideally, the stick length should be such that you have 0 curve and 100% saturation and it matches the sensitivity of the real aircraft. But that varies from one aircraft to the next. On the other hand, taking my comments into account about learning to fly and learning to deal with what you have, even if you don't have an extension..... Start learning to fly with a large amount of curve so you have good fine control at the middle of the stick while you are learning. When you get comfortable that you can hover with those settings, then start to remove the curve (flatten out the curve) and then practice until you get comfortable again. Eventually you will get to the point that you can fly and hover comfortably with no curve at all. I gave the example of learning to fly an RC helicopter. When I started, I had the rates on my RC controller so low (fine - like adding a lot of curve, or dropping saturation to 70%). The helicopter was easy to fly, but not very responsive. As I got better, I kept making my controls more and more sensitive (saturation back up to 100%, and removing the curve). Now when I fly using the settings I started with, I can't stand it. There's no response because the control is too flat (takes too much input to get a reaction). On my RC helicopter, I fly with 100% saturation, and only a minor curve (because a 3D acrobatic helicopter has the controls so sensitive that you typically need some curve for fine control, but full saturation because the flick of a thumb needs to send the helicopter into an insane loop or roll - and that's what we want for RC). So saying it again, in DCS use Curve (and maybe Saturation) to learn. But your goal should be to eventually have Saturation set to default (100%), and no curve. If you can fly DCS with these settings competently with a stock joystick, then you can fly a real helicopter. The only statement against that is PC joysticks have springs and center detents. Take a Warthog for example, If you are hovering a helicopter with a Warthog and you are constantly crossing over the center detent, it can get annoying as it affects your fine control. You have to constantly vary your hand force to overcome the detent to not over compensate. Real helicopters don't have this issue (no centering detent). You can reduce the detent by doing the spring mod. Helps a lot. For me, I fly with a MS Force Feedback 2 with the FFB spring force set very low. There is no center detent to contend with using that stick. In fact, I can fly with 3 fingers on the stick. That allows me to relax and have better fine control. And in fact, I learned that from my first flight in a real Robinson R44 - the instructor told me to rest my hand on my leg, relax my hand. and use 3 fingers (2 fingers and my thumb) on the stick. Made a _huge_ difference. Now I fly with my entire hand on the stick, but that's because as I practiced, I was able to fly with my full hand on the stick and still remain relaxed and in control. No arm pump from squeezing the stick too much or feeling like I have to hold my muscles too much. This is all just part of the learning experience, be it a real helicopter or DCS. You need to learn to relax and maintain fine flight control, and as you do, you'll see that a more sensitive stick is in fact better. But starting out, go ahead and turn down the sensitivity (add Curve or drop Saturation) as it makes it easier to learn when you are a novice. We don't get to do that in the real helicopters. Regards, Michael

This is a great analysis and suggestion. I bet a lot of people forget, or don't know they can adjust the curves in DCS using the "mixer" sliders on the Tune panel. It is a very powerful feature. I would also suggest, though, that the human brain is a lot better at compensating for an S curved axis control than some might think. In RC flying, for example, many pilots add Expo (as we call it - basically the S curve or curvature in DCS) to our controls for the same reason people do it in DCS. But it's even more important with an RC radio control because we are flying (sometimes purposely twitchy) aircraft with our thumbs - and it's hard to move a joystick with your thumb. :) Yet, people compensate very well with practice. So much so that many RC pilots will add significant Expo (a large S curve) which gives very fine control around stick center, but with a flick of the thumb, they immediately get a radical control input - what I call a kick. With practice, regardless of how non-linear or linear the control stick is, you will get used to it. And if you practice using S curves that are constantly different (which happens if you fly different aircraft, or different settings for different purposes), you will also get good at immediately recognizing where the S curve knees are and compensating for it, even if someone sneaks in and changes the curves on you without you knowing it. Not immediately, but within a few minutes an experienced pilot will compensate. I often explain the concept as kicking the stick. Balance a broom (bristles up) on the palm of your hand. Now move the broom back and forth slowly. Easy enough. This is like the more flat part of the S curve. You balance the broom by moving your hand slowly and the top of the broom follows closely. This is all fine control. Now quickly, throw your hand 2 feet to your left, then 2 feet to your right, then back to center, all the while not losing control of the balance of the broom. That is like exceeding the knee of the S curve. The part I call kicking the stick. Here, you are focused on a radical hand movement, but the broom can't immediately follow your hand. So you make an input on the broom that would cause it to fall if you then didn't immediately compensate back the other way to catch the fall. For example, when you move your hand back to center, you have to slightly go past center to stop the momentum of the broom from falling over, and then you can center your hand. The two motions of the broom require completely different strategies in how you compensate for losing balance. And, flying a helicopter sometimes requires the same thing - especially one like the Gazelle. To get the Gazelle to respond quickly and radically (say a left aileron roll), you must kick the Gazelle stick hard left, a split second later, the Gazelle will respond quickly and radically. But now you must quickly kick the stick back the other way to catch the response and stop the Gazelle from turning to far. If you had to kick the stick (balance the broom) with a soft (flat line) curve, you end up having to move your hand too far to get the "kick". It takes too much movement of your hand to kick the stick. But with Expo (an S curve), you can move your hand a relatively small amount - just past the knee of the curve, and you get the equivalent of kicking the stick, but with a very fine (small) movement of your hand. And sometimes kicking the stick works best if you don't have to move much. The force control of an F16C flight stick is a perfect example of this, where flight control is practically a muscle twitch of the hand instead of a movement of the arm. Of course, all this applies equally to a flat curve (like on a real helicopter cyclic), but much of my point (and Dvst's point) is that our short joysticks don't quite work like the real thing. The throw is wrong. The proper way to solve that is to extend the stick so you can put a flat curve on your DCS control inputs that matches the real thing. But in lieu of that, adding Expo (S curve) to our short sticks is in fact the proper way to deal with it. I say that because reducing the max throw (reducing saturation) is the worst thing to do. It preserves a flat response curve and makes the short stick feel more like the real thing, but it actually removes the amplitude of your max throw, preventing you from performing a proper kick when needed. Some of you will disagree. And of course you would be right as we are all different in how we feel about our controls. It's a more complex topic than I have explained here. It's all about the human/machine feedback loop, muscle memory, and our ability to _subconsciously_ compensate for different controls. But, it really just boils down to what you get used to - practice. Practice will allow you to overcome any flat or S curve you are given, and in fact, with more practice, you'll get to the point that someone can throw any type of curve at you, and within a few minutes, you will compensate for any amount of non-linearity and be flying with that curve. It may not seem possible - I'm sure many of you have spent hours getting frustrated at making your stick control the helicopter as you want no matter what S curve or Saturation values you use. But keep practicing and you will eventually see what I mean. Worry less about if the control is perfect, and worry more about learning to fly with the control you have. I'll say, however, if your goal is to make DCS as close to reality as possible, than Dvst's analysis is very significant. Real helicopter cyclics are very sensitive, and do not have an S curve. Matching that sensitivity with no Curvature in DCS probably requires lengthening your stick to match the real thing, and applying what Dvst said about saturation, etc. Regards, Michael

An inspirational effort for sure. His article was one of many factors that got me started designing my own FFB stick. The big compromise for most consumer FFB sticks was how to make a cheap but reliable consumer product using molded plastic for the gimbals and gears. Many of them failed with gimbals that broke or were worn out in short order. The MS FFB 2 was $200 retail when it came out some 15 years ago and they got it pretty right - meaning they did some significant stuff to make pieces of plastic work that well, smoothly, reliably, and without bearings! Impressive. But because I will machine my gimbals out of aluminum and use roller bearings, I don't have to worry about most of those issues. Instead, my issue is picking the motors, and how to do the gearing. The motor choice, and the gearing from motor to gimbal axis is really the critical part in order to make sure the design can handle the weight of the stick, but still feel smooth, not notchy. The gearing is the weak part. Even using metal gears isn't necessarily reliable. The electronics and software is relatively easy, though. I do that for a living. Ultimately, I've decided I just need to make something, see where it fails, iterate, learn, and eventually I'll figure out the right set of compromises to meet my goals. That being a FFB gimbal, electronics, and software that can be used in a DIY setup for making your own FFB stick. Back to the original question for this thread: This is kind of hijacking the thread, so apologies to the OP and anyone not interested in this. I guess it just points out how much my answer to the original question "Magnetic Trim - Use it OR Not ?" is a resounding yes! But you need to get a FFB stick to make it really worth it. I can't stand the thought of flying a helicopter sim without one. I remember there was great confusion about "magnetic trim" (or what ever it was called) on the Blackshark when it first came out. Most of that was because of how they tried to implement it using a non-FFB stick (press and hold the button, move the stick to center and release it). But with a FFB stick it is completely obvious what it does, why and how. Regards, Michael

Thanks. I wasn't sure if there was a button or not. I thought I read about this somewhere (not on the ED forums, but about a real Gazelle). I was unable to find the info again in the place I thought I saw it, so I must be mistaken. It is just the click from the fuel lever locking into it's full on position. Regards, Michael

Thankfully, the Microsoft FFB 2 is probably the best FFB stick ever made, and the one I would suggest any DCS developers get to test their FFB. Then hopefully depend on a few beta testers with the 940 or others to confirm how it works. Maybe the Logitech 940 is the only other stick you can compare to. But there are enough MS FFB 2's that people can generally get them for $30 to $50 shipped off eBay in excellent condition. The 940 is so rare it tends to sell for insane prices. There are some other FFB sticks (Logitech and other brands) that are absolutely horrible. It's the gimbals that make the difference, but also the motor and gear design. The MS FFB 2 has an excellent consumer grade (plastic) gimbal and gear design with good motors. The older Microsoft ForceFeedback Pro is also an OK design, but doesn't have as good of motors as the FFB 2, and you need to build a Adapt-FFB-Joy circuit (Google it) to convert the old 15 pin connector to USB. Once you do, it works, and quite well. But the FFB 2 is noticeably better. Really, the big reason for using a FFB stick with a helicopter sim is the lack of springs. I can't imagine flying a helicopter with a HOTAS Warthog or Cougar (or any other sprung stick) due to the center detent effect. The FFB motors are used to create resistance and spring feel (for autopilot or flight assistance systems on a helicopter), and also model the trim or magnetic brake functions correctly. So I deal with the lack of buttons by doubling and tripping up buttons on my Warthog throttle just so I can use a MS FFB 2 stick. The major downside of the MS FFB 2 is the stick has a small dead zone in the center which you cannot program out. The software that came with the FFB 2 allowed changing rates and dead zones, but even if that software worked in Win7/8/8.1/10 (it does not), it cannot get rid of the dead zone. It is frustrating to not have all the hats and buttons from my Warthog, though. So I will eventually design a FFB base to mount my Warthog/Cougar stick on. But that's a whole other discussion (and yes, I do know how big of a project that is, but it's much easier than it might seem). It's too bad nobody is making FFB for flight sticks. A little surprising considering that car race sims all have FFB wheels, but we aren't getting the FFB love for flight sims. Regards, Michael

Poly, glad to hear it. It's easy to forget that no one is currently selling a FFB stick. Though they are generally available from eBay (and for much cheaper than their original price), it still isn't a mainstream product. Hence developers must prioritize their time and often leave FFB coding until later. simFFB is a good alternative in the mean time. For those that don't know what it is, it implements a configurable amount of spring, friction, and hydraulic feel to the stick, as well as simulating the equivalent of Trim (using the HAT), or magnetic brake (using a button you choose in simFFB). It does these functions regardless of the sim you are running, but it works as if the sim was doing it. It works by loading the sim (e.g. DCS), Alt-Tabbing out and running simFFB (or resetting the Direct Input from the simFFB menu), and simFFB takes over the FFB functions from DCS. This works equally well for aircraft in DCS whether they implement FFB or not. Because I like the ability to control the friction, spring force, and hydraulic feel of the stick, I tend to use simFFB even for DCS aircraft that have otherwise implemented FFB. The down side about simFFB is it is not supported anymore and it is not available from any one web site. You have to google it and find it posted on a forum. So if you download it, make sure you get it from a source you trust. I downloaded simFFB from this post: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1628706&postcount=43 I also have the source code, but I don't remember where I got it. BTW, simFFB works great for helicopters, or jet sims, where trim functions and configurable stick force (spring, friction, and hydraulic feel) are what you are looking for, but not necessarily airspeed and stalling effects. Because simFFB completely replaces the FFB output from DCS, it is not so useful for prop sims where the FFB also needs to implement stuff like variable force on the stick due to stalling and wind speed. I.e. simFFB does not combine with the FFB effects from DCS. It replaces them completely. Regards, Michael

No need to delete your save games. Just do as Pluie said. Opening the axis config menu, clearing the settings in the red areas (not sure if this is absolutely required), and then most important, closing and restarting DCS is what gets rid of the red lines.

I did some more testing with the new update. No difference. More importantly, I realized something that should be taken into consideration for improving this issue. The button I referred to above that is clicked when the fuel lever is all the way forward is simulated with an actual click sound. I.e. you should hear a click when the button is pressed or unpressed. Either this is the sound of the button, or the sound of relays clicking when it is actuated. This click coincides with the Alarm light going on or off (and hence the fuel flow governor kicking in or out). But the Auto Hover issue does not engage or disengage with the click. Again, if I just tap the PgDn key quickly enough to move the fuel flow lever (visibly), but not cause the click, the Auto Hover will disengage, but the Alarm light does not light, and there was no click. If I press the PgDn button again quickly (or maybe 3 times quickly), then I hear the click, and the Alarm light goes on. In the real helicopter, the button controls everything because there is only one button (of course). In the software, I think the effect of the button is being simulated differently by different parts of the software. The auto hover, or auto-pilot functions are simulating the button due to the smallest amount of movement of the fuel lever. The Alarm light and fuel governor is being simulated by different code which also coincides with the click sound. Or something to that effect. Obviously, what ever system generates the click sound should generate a global variable that means one state or the other, and all software affected by this button should go off that global variable. Forgive me for stating the obvious. Part of my point is, the work around for the user is to add a dead zone at the top (and bottom) of the fuel lever range. Well, going by the click sound and the Alarm light, this was done for the click. But it was not done for the Auto Hover function. Also, it would be best to add a bit more dead zone in the software for the click to occur to make a little more room for noisy pots in analog controls. Regards, Michael

Auto hover (and other functions) are absolutely affected by fuel throttle position not being at 100%. Please see my explanation at the link below. I just spent several hours last night testing this before writing up that report. I confirmed what many people have seen, that the issues many people are having is due to the fuel lever position. It is mostly due to a noisy analog axis causing the fuel lever to wiggle back and forth, but I was also able to cause the problem by quickly tapping the PgDn button which moved the fuel lever back just enough to prevent the Auto Hover from working, but not enough to cause the Alarm light. Other stuff similarly failed to work in this state, but I did not do complete tests on those functions. http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?...3&postcount=12 The workaround of adding a small amount of dead zone at the top of the analog axis (I used Saturation X = 95% which adds a small dead zone at the top and bottom of the axis) totally solved the issue. But it does not get rid of the problem. Again, the problem can exist for anyone, even those using the mouse or keyboard to move the throttle lever if they do not make absolutely sure the lever it all the way forward. As best I understand, on the real Gazelle, there is a button that is pressed when the fuel lever is all the way forward. This button is being simulated in DCS Gazelle, but it is only pressed at 100% throttle. If you are even a small amount back (99%?? or 98%??), then the button is not pressed and several aspects of the helicopter do not work. This button is critical for a real Gazelle. On a real Gazelle, for example, it tells the fuel control to take over and auto-throttle the engine. So if the button is not pressed, the helicopter will fly, sort of, but with great difficulty because the throttle will not change to overcome load changes. The Alarm light should light when the button is not pressed for obvious reasons. But in my tests, I was able to create the case where things were not working (the button was not pressed) but the Alarm light did not light. Regarding the fuel control, however, I think every time it shut down, the Alarm light was on. Again, I didn't fully test all aspects of this. I was focused on the Auto Hover function as affected by the fuel lever only. Regards, Michael

On the SA341, the switch is pushed full up to start the engine and then moved back to the middle position for normal flight. But on the DCS SA342, this does not seem to be the case as down is VENT and middle is OFF. So you should fly with the start switch in the UP position. Also, consider, if you want to practice an auto-rotation, if the switch is not UP, you will kill the engine when you close the fuel flow lever. Video example by Chuck Owl: [ame] [/ame] Regards, Michael

Another forum topic where someone wasn't able to even start the helicopter due to issues described above using an analog axis for the fuel flow lever. Just FYI. http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=172278 Regards, Michael

Old thread, but it seems to still be biting people. I actually read this thread and it didn't solve my issue with Auto Hover not working until I did some more extensive tests and saw more of exactly why it is happening (and why it might happen even if you aren't using an analog axis to control the fuel flow lever). I posted my results in the following bug discussion: http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=2878173&postcount=12 Regards, Michael

I believe on the real Gazelle, the pilot actually watches the torque meter to make sure it doesn't go past a certain amount as engine damage will occur otherwise. As others stated, in DCS Gazelle, just make sure you keep the engine RPM and rotor RPM needles basically on top of each other and you'll be good.

Description: Auto Hover will not engage or remain engaged sometimes. For me, this is due to a noisy analog axis used for the fuel flow lever. But I was also able to create the problem with a very quick press of the PgDn button, but this did not turn on the Alarm light which I believe should happen. See below.... For those that don't know, the real Gazelle has a button on the fuel flow lever that is pressed when the fuel lever is pushed all the way forward. If this button is not pressed, then certain things will not work (e.g. auto hover). DCS Gazelle simulates this button. The main Alarm light should light if this button is not pressed I believe. At least that is what I see most the time in DCS Gazelle. The Dev's will have to verify that maybe. In my case, when having this issue, I was able to create the situation where noise on my analog axis, or very quickly pressing the PgDn button (which I saw actually moved the fuel flow lever) did not cause the Alarm light to go on, but did prevent Auto Hover from working. It may have affected other stuff like some other autopilot modes, but I didn't test that in detail. In the case of my noisy axis, I could create the case where I could engage auto hover, but due to the noise causing the fuel flow lever to wiggle back and forth slightly, it would disengage auto hover within a few seconds. But the Alarm light would not light to indicate why. It was only when I actually pulled the analog axis lever back a very small amount would I see the Alarm light go on. Workaround: For those using an analog axis, just add a small amount of "Saturation X" to the axis. I used 95. This creates a deadzone at the top and bottom of the axis, preventing analog noise from causing the fuel flow switch to disengage. For people using the mouse or keyboard to push the lever forward, make sure you have it all the way forward. There is a small window where it is far enough forward to disengage the Alarm light, but still not allow auto hover. Pressing PgUp a couple times should close the gap. Again, I'll leave it up to the Devs to decide if this is a bug, but it seems to be causing people issues. My suggestion is to open up the window as to what is considered "full forward" on the fuel flow lever to make a little room for a noisy analog axis, or users that don't push it full forward using the mouse or keyboard. I mean, in the real Gazelle, there is probably a small area of play in the lever where the button is engaged even if the lever is wiggled back and forth. Also, you may want to investigate the code regarding the Alarm light not coming on but other stuff failing to work. It is as if there are two "buttons" to indicate if the lever is fully forward. BTW, regarding my noisy analog axis. The noise put out by this axis (it is a resistive pot on a Saitek Throttle Quadrant) is typical and common for many analog axis on game controllers. In fact, the pot was recently cleaned and lubricated with a fluid designed for making noisy pots clean again and so this pot actually works better than many pots I've seen on game controllers. The noise hasn't been an issue in other sims, but this is the first case where a "switch" at the end of axis travel is effectively "clicked" by the axis when at full travel. Hence why I suggest that maybe the dev's should increase the window (add a dead zone) at the end of travel for the fuel flow lever - to reduce the chance that noisy pots will cause issues. Even though the work around I suggest works fine, making a change might save people frustration. Otherwise, the work around has solved my issue. Other info from your template: DCS Version: 1.5.4.55584, 2.0.3.55457 Steam: Not on Steam Map: Caucaus map on 1.5.4. NTTR on 2.0.3. SP/MP: Single Player (have not tried multiplayer). Reproducible: Yes. Step to Reproduce: See my explanation above.... Screenshot/Video available: I can take screen shots or a movie if desired. Track Available: I will make availabe if required. Mission File: It can happen regardless of the mission file. Controllers: TrackIR. Thrustmaster HOTAS Warthog throttle used for collective, programmed with custom TARGET Script (stick not used). Microsoft Force Feedback 2 stick used for cyclic. Saitek Throttle Quadrant (2 axis used for Throttle and Rotor brake respectively). Saitek Combat rudder pedals for antitorque. All unused inputs are cleared (to make sure there is no conflicting control input on the same axis from different controllers). OS: Windows 10 RAM: 16GB GPU: Gigabypte GTX 1080 Mods: None.

This isn't just an issue in multi-player. Auto Hover used to work for me, but in recent weeks, I am having significant problems with it. Difficulties engaging it, as well as having it disengage regularly within seconds. My issues occur both in the 1.5 branch as well as the 2.x branch, all in single player. I haven't tried multi-player. And before anyone asks, it's not an issue of not understanding how to engage it. When I am able to engage it, I can engage it easily, but it disengages within 2 to 10 seconds. At other times, I am unable to engage it at all even though I have met the requirements to engage it. And when it disengages on it's own, the aircraft is not oscillating or moving significantly (which might trigger disengagement). I first started to notice the issue when I ran the NTTR training mission that shows how to use the HOT3 missiles. It is supposed to start with auto hover engaged (so you can operate as the gunner, not the pilot), but it is not engaged, and I cannot engage it in this mission. So I went to other missions and my own missions and found there are problems with auto-hover in all cases. I can provide the template of info if needed (but I'm not at my sim computer right now), but more important, my point is, this is happening for me consistently in 1.5 and 2.x (current released versions). Something changed in the last few weeks to make this fail. Regards, Michael

Old topic, but FYI, it appears they have fixed this in the new release of TARGET v3.0.16. They didn't change the defines.tmh file. It still says IN_POSITION_AXIS_THROTTLE, so I guess they fixed it elsewhere.

Regarding learning to fly a real helicopter, I believe most students get the basics of flight (i.e. are able to reasonably control, take off, land, and perform some basic emergency procedures) in a helicopter within about 10-15 hours. It's all the other training such as flight patterns, airport operations, navigation, rules, etc. that takes up the significant majority of the training time. The people in the BBC series still learned quickly, but it's not so surprising, and it definitively helped to start some of those skills in an airplane. Also regarding learning real vs. sim, it is always more difficult to learn on a PC sim than in the real world. As mentioned already, real has better visibility, physical feedback, etc. and don't underestimate that instructor's impact. I learned more in my 2 hours of helicopter flight training than I learned in probably 6 months of trying to fly DCS Huey. I'm a much better sim pilot because of it. Because flying the real thing told me what to focus on in the sim in order to figure it out. Regards, Michael

Are your frame rates similar in the v1.5 Caucasus vs. the 2.0.2 NTTR map? The 2.0.2 NTTR map tends to take more to drive a good FPS, especially around Las Vegas. More so than other DCS helicopters, I found that poor frame rate (< 20 FPS) radically changed my ability to fly the DCS Gazelle. Above 30FPS, it is pretty easy, but below 20FPS, it gets difficult fast. It's a human feedback loop thing. At low FPS, you can't see quickly enough how your inputs are changing the movement of the helicopter. Hence, you'll likely overcompensate more often at low FPS. I haven't flown the new update yet, so I can't comment. Regards, Michael

I'll add my praise for Polychop. The DCS Gazelle is fun to fly, even if there are possible FM issues. It's an early release, so no complaints. It's the sports car helicopter I've been waiting for in DCS. Because it came out with a good enough manual, some basic training missions and other little details like that, that makes this one of the more complete releases we've seen in DCS. I'm looking forward to your future work. Thanks! Regards, Michael

With practice now, I am able to get into a stable hover with minimal forward sliding, but it doesn't change the fact that the forward slide is still there. Maybe the slide is accurate due to an imbalance from the heavy camera equipment on top of the canopy, and without that, maybe it wouldn't slide forward. But it still seems unsafe for a real helicopter, and I would hope the designers would have counterbalanced the equipment for real. The following link is a recent lift off I recorded. Not perfect, but it shows the point. There is an inset video showing my cyclic and collective, or you can watch the in sim control movements in the lower left corner. I have 70% Saturation on the cyclic X & Y and anti-torque pedals. Here is the same video later, showing another (different) lift off from the external view. The inset video does not correctly show my control inputs, so ignore it. Again, not a perfect lift off. I'm still drifting forward. But it is controllable. If you care to see, the rest of the video shows other examples of how active I have to be on the controls for what should be easy manuvers for a good pilot. It shows what I mean by "kicking" the cyclic and pedals in order to maintain controlled flight. I'm not a good pilot, and of course I would not do most of this in real life. But my point is, after only a few hours of practice in DCS, maintaining this amount of control was relatively easy and the sim is quite fun, regardless of whether the FM is correct or not. Regards, Michael

Playing with cars and trucks. Plus some failures and odd stuff at the end of the video.

For forward flight turns, I found if I use a little bit of anti-torque (like using the rudder for coordinated flight in an airplane), the turns are much much more stable. But I still have to be very active on the cyclic to keep it stable (see below about kicking the stick). FM is very unstable right now if you are moving the stick at all. But... If you let go of the stick, the DCS Gazelle is so stable, you would think it was on auto pilot. I assume this is the SAS. So when flying straight, I would let go of the cyclic and use trim to adjust pitch and mild turns. I found to fly it competently, I have to do very small movements (sensitive stick) during hover, but when flying at speed, I need to do "kick" movements of the cyclic to get movement initiated quickly, and then kick back to stop (e.g. start an aileron roll, and then stop the roll at say 30 degrees - then pull back to make the turn). You can't baby the stick at speed. This is because at speed, the stick is still sensitive, but the DCS Gazelle responds very slowly. Constantly, but slowly. The slightest movement of the stick will cause it to turn or pitch, but then you have to get just the exact right movement back to stop the turn. Since it is so slow to respond, it is difficult to know if you have moved it enough, and hence you oscillate back and forth trying to hold a turn. Let go of the stick, and the oscillations stop and it settles out to whatever the trim settings are. This is using a FFB stick (MS FFB 2). I am unsure exactly how much of the FFB code has been implemented in DCS Gazelle. But I use simFFB for FFB effects which bypasses any FFB control by DCS. The trim functions, however, are being implemented both by simFFB and DCS Gazelle. If set up correctly, simFFB compliments trim in the simulation. I think if you did this with a non-FFB stick, when you trim, and let go of the stick, it would center, and that center position would be correct for the trim. So you should see the same results, FFB or no FFB. So when I say kick the stick, I mean a hard deflection of the cyclic to the side to quickly initiate the roll, and then a hard deflection back to center to stop the roll. Then hard deflections either way to adjust the attitude and control the turn. The same can be said about pitching up or down. You get it to respond quickly to your inputs - quick enough that you can instantly see the result of your input, and then instantly compensate for any over control. Because turning requires both a roll, and then pulling back on the cyclic, this is an active process in both X and Y directions. Though this is a fun challenge, it does not seem how a helicopter should work as it is very unstable. But at least using this technique, I am able to control the helicopter with precision both in mild as well as aggressive maneuvers, and so it is enjoyable now. But only if I can maintain > 20 FPS. Below 20FPS, I can't get fast enough feedback from the sim to see if I need kick it back, and my flights are significantly less stable. I did not see any difference turning off the Auto Pilot functions. So if this is related to SAS, AP has nothing to do with it. Regards, Michael

exil, yes, that is very much what I am seeing too. I finally found a happy spot with holding a little bit of cyclic to the side in a turn, and I was able to pull back and complete turns in a way that felt normal (i.e. I was making good flat level turns), but it was a balancing act. I had to focus a lot on keeping the thing on the knife's edge (cyclic just right) or it would either turn back to level, or nose in toward the ground too easily. This is a pretty severe instability. It's manageable, but I hope the real Gazelle isn't like that. I read up more on the SAS (on the real Gazelle). The manual for the DCS Gazelle does not explain it. I was trying to figure out exactly what the real SAS does (how it works and to what degree), and if it can be disabled (turn off auto pilot functions?) I haven't had a chance to play with this more however in DCS. I also noticed the issue mentioned where during a slow lift off, the DCS Gazelle wants to slide forward, requiring a significant amount of back cyclic, but as soon as you break free from the ground, you nearly smash your tail into the tarmac due to the significant back cyclic. This is probably a bug. My background, (since Focha asked) is I'm not a helicopter pilot, but started my training to become one. I regularly fly RC helicopters too. I am also a motorcycle racer and motorcycle instructor (teaching at the track for 15 years now). What does that have to do with helicopters? A lot. Flying a helicopter and riding a motorcycle are two different things, but the process by which you learn to do both is very similar. Since I spend a lot of time teaching people how to ride (and race), I understand well the human aspect of controlling a machine, as well as getting people to overcome obstacles and fears to make that machine do difficult things. What does this have to do with anything? It just means I understand the many ways people feel about a machine and why. I often see even an experienced rider hop on a bike they aren't familiar with and not get comfortable with the feel of the bike. That's not making any comment about your comments that started this thread. Just an interesting observation in general that many people are comparing DCS Gazelle to other DCS helicopter modules, and that isn't entirely reasonable until people have spent enough time to get comfortable with the DCS Gazelle. DCS Gazelle felt really wrong to me at first. I took the time to figure it out. Now I understand where some things still feel wrong, and where some things were just me not being used to it. How much of that is correct vs. the real Gazelle, of course I have no idea. Regardless, your comments were some of the first I read that matched what I finally saw after I got used to the DCS Gazelle. And as I was posting my message above, "The M" said this. Yes, exactly. :) Regards, Michael

Do you have a stick with rudder twist? It's not as ideal as using rudder pedals, but if you add some curvature (perhaps Curvature 15 to 30 or more) and/or change saturation, you should be able to get pretty good control from a twist stick. It will still take _lots_ of practice, but with perseverance, you'll get there. Flying a helicopter requires active and constant changing of the anti-torque pedals. At low speed (hover or landing), even the smallest change in the collective requires a similar change in anti-torque, so there is no way to trim it out and have it maintain a constant orientation. Not unless the sim is made simpler by adding a feature not found in the real thing (a auto-trim for the anti-torque pedals). The Blackshark has such auto-pilot features in real life, but simpler helicopters like the Gazelle and Huey do not. Alternatively, use a separate analog control on your throttle (collective) control to adjust anti-torque. A pot on a HOTAS Cougar throttle, or Saitek X.. series throttle for example. Again, it'll be difficult, but flying a helicopter is difficult period. The trick is to decide you want to over come the difficulty and keep practicing. If you can do that, there is no doubt you will achieve your goal, even if you have to use a non-standard method of control. Regards, Michael