Holton181

Do you have "synk with hardware controls" or whatever it's called enabled in the DCS setup?

Use no curves, and no deadzone. Do you use pedals? It sounds to me you are holding the stick with your entire hand and being to tensed in your arm muscles. If you can, remove all centering springs (and center detent), might necessitate some disassembling. As you probably have read already, place the stick on the floor between your legs in such a way you can rest (and relax) your lower right arm on your right thigh, comfortably holding the stick with your thumb, index and middle fingers. Use your (relaxed) fingers for small corrections, wrist for bigger (still relaxed and small movements).

Collective: the big handle on your left, on the side of your left thigh. The one generally controlling up/down, but together with the cyclic (the stick between your legs) also speed. Named collective because it alter the angle of all the rotorblades equally much, collectively. Route mode switch: a three way switch on the right side of the box at the end of the collective. Putting it forward ('D' key I believe) the route mode engages, backwards (don't remember the key) and the desend mode engages. Forward it stay until you disengage, backwards it is spring loaded and need to be held as long as you want it engaged. Collective brake: on the underside of the collector ('R' key), operated as a motorcycle brake/clutch, but in reverse. Brake disengage when pulled, engage when releasing. It also programs altitude hold AP at release. The paart of the rudder trim not implemented IRL is the 'return to center'. Heading hold controls the rudder and are programmed by trimming.

Nope, works perfectly fine with FD turned off. I basically never use FD, but often the functions mentioned above.

Appreciated, thanks!

Hi, Just saw this: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=4145270 (last post of today) I really hope this doesn't mean changelogs won't be posted here at the forum anymore. Here the changelog thread can be followed and read from Tapatalk (which I personally used almost exclusively for forum interaction and information), but not the new location. Or have I just interpreted the message incorrectly?

Or it's just oriented "route up" for a fictional route in contrast to "north up". Sometimes when the format is fixed it's better to let the orientation be along the longer axis of the route. But here it surely could just be a mistake.

[emoji106]

Seems like we agree to disagree to some extent. Fine with me. Indeed it would be good to get imput from a subject matter expert, pilot or engineer or something. Just so difficult to determine validity if just a comment from someone here at the forum claiming to be one of these.

Down obviously. As in the video shared by Weta43 above. Yes, OP describe a pitch up, some said it being due to buggs, others it beings caused by systems to counter the recoil. After that the discussion has been about the existence of recoil at all. Thats where I come in. I have no idea why the DCS KA-50 pitch up, and frankly I don't care much about it, being a low precision weapon.

Bugger! You got me back her. Oh well... Originally the diskussion was about strange behavior of the helicopter, stab systems at play or not, bug or not. Then quickly turned into a discussion about physics. Yes, it's all about physics now. How could it be otherwise? If you don't want to discuss physics it will be very difficult for you to get a good understanding of the matter. Not at my computer at the moment so can't edit the picture. But move the top arrow to the top of the picture, and there you have (part of) the leverage arm causing the pitching of the helicopter. Another part of the arm essentially extend vertically from top of the picture to center of gravity of the helicopter.

I say not needed at all (as historically proven). The recoil effect on yaw is to high extent canceled at speed, yes, more so on fastmovers. Rockets are no precision weapons, effect on pitch can be counted for by aiming routines. Yes, they are lighter. So? The acceleration and hence the force is still high. Bombs are heavy yes, but you just drop them. Apples and oranges... both good fruit... That's why I said I mentioned it as a reminder and reference.... :megalol: On a fastmover the pod is placed close to where the lifting forces are generated (wing), redusing the recoil leverage on pitch. On helicopters it's a different matter. I have now vented my thoughts on the matter. Please continue as you like.

Well, I used the hovering example to illustrate that you don't always need high forces to make something heavy to move. You focus to much on the weight. According to OP the movement discussed is the tilting (pitch, but essentially the same as the bank as in my embarrassing example), not yaw. Even if firing rockets from one side only has to have an effect on yaw too. About your argument about rocket weight. Do you remember this: F=a*m? Force equal to acceleration times mass, Newton's second law. Then we have the third law: When one body exerts a force on a second body, the second body simultaneously exerts a force equal in magnitude and opposite in direction on the first body. I'm sure you already know all this, just mention it as a refresher and for reference. Now, how fast is the rocket accelerating while leaving the tube? Like a fully loaded truck and trailer? Na, not really. Can you see the rocket when it's leaving the (rather short) tube (looking from the side)? The fire flash and smoke yes, but not really the rocket it self. Even if the rocket might be relatively lightweight, the force will be high due to its acceleration. The force backwards exerted on the exhaust gasses are, as I already mentioned, not distributed straight back one-dimensionaly, but since the gasses wants to expand laterally a rather high amount of the force will be exerted lengthwise on the walls of the tube by friction. How high amount? Half? More? Less? Hard to tell, but it's there and most likely higher than you might think. Then we have the effect when the rocket has just left the tube entirely. The gasses will exert force on the pod. How much? Depends. If the rocket was fired from a tube close to the outer wall of the pod, roughly half the exhaust gasses will pas outside the pod, but if it's fired from close to the pod center all of the gasses hit the pod. Is the pod fuly loaded effectively making it a wall, or empty tubes? Which one of these two steps are the most pronounced, if not equal, is hard to tell. But a most likely noticeable force will be exerted on the aircraft, standing still or at speed. My contribution to the discussion is only about the physical plausibility of a recoil, not about possible systems countering it or whether we have a bug in DCS or not.

The mas of the helicopter doesn't have much relevance actually. It is basikaly hanging loose on a "frictionless" cushion of air and making it yaw doesn't require much force (without various stab systems doing their thing, also consider the KA-50 being coaxial without the need of anti-torque tail rotor). Let's say you are hovering 1m above the ground, the yaw (heading) AP turned off, a single guy on the ground could push on the tail (or one pylon) and it would turn accordingly (not a comfortable place to be standing, in the worst downwash, but that's another question). The leverage you get from the relative position on which the force is applied does also have a pronounced effect. Lethal accidents have happened where helicopters are about to pick up personnel while in a hover, and a person entering the helicopter have done it unannounced and ruthlessly (putting the entire body weight on the step instantly). This makes the helicopter (weighing some tons) tilt to the side because the pilot wasn't prepared and couldn't counter the sudden tilt. A different movement but working by the same principles. About the OH-58, for what I know it has pretty fancy stabilization systems on board and I would guess it has some functionality to counter yaw due to rocket recoil (just guessing).

Expanding exhaust gasses traveling backwards at a significant speed. They are NOT distributed one-dimensionaly (straight back), but expand and "grabbing hold of" the walls of the tube. When the rocket end leaves the tube the entire pod becomes a wall the gasses pushes on.

Maybe you already seen it in the first post, but in the original MOD it's located just behind the weapons pannel. If using the original MOD you might need to look at post #25 and #30.

These are the reasons I still run DCS 1.5.7 for serious playing. Most material out there are originally made for the DCS 1, and got heavily bugged in the transition to DCS 2. I say "transition" because 1.5.8 introduced several new things common with the DCS 2 beta, including much worse AI helicopter behavior. It wasn't good pre 1.5.8 either, but manageable. With the new "realistic" efficiency of ground unit armor even many missions/campaigns originally made for DCS 2.5 got bugged too.

Take your time, worth waiting for!

Ah, really sorry to hear! Don't worry about testing, let real life settle to more comfortable levels. Have heard about your problems with fires but didn't think of it when sitting comfortably in the sofa and attending the forums. Hope you and your close ones are safe, and that your illness will soon go away.

Hi robgraham, Would you mind trying out version 1.4 Beta I have attached to this post? Use the standard AHRS method. I have enhanced the XATT sentence to containing all 12 values, what I believe is the full length of it. The header is still "XATTDCS" and I am pretty sure it should work, but if this version doesn't, pleas try removing only "CS" leaving the header as "XATTD". The reason for this is that OzRunways natively supports X-Plane AHRS sentences, and that header is "XATTK" (no clue why X-Plane has "K"). I have been in contact with a guy at OzRunways and gotten som help from him, and also done some testing with X-Plane (sending AHRS sentences over UDP) together with Wireshark (network analyzer), and successfully recreated the full structure of XATT (since I could not find any documentation about it): XATTDCS,TrueHeading,Pitch,Roll,P,Q,-R,VZ,VY,-VX,G_side,G_normal,G_axial Angular velocities P,Q,R in rad/s P -> Bank, right positive Q -> Pitch, nose up positive R -> Yaw, left positive -- X-Plane right positive Speed in 3D Space VX,VY,VZ in m/s VX -> North south, north positive -- X-Plane east west VY -> Up down, up positive VZ -> East west, east positive -- X-Plane north south, south positive G-load G_side -> "centrifugal force", positive when turning right G_normal -> "G-force" in loop, pitch up positive G_axial -> "Acceleration" in car, speeding up positive Some values had either shifted naming (VX and VZ) or opposite sign or both in DCS compared to X-Plane, and since X-Plane has native support for AHRS communication I adopted the DCS sentence to correspond to X-Plane. I hope I got it all right. (I'm an Android guy so can't test it myself) DCS_NMEA 1.4 Beta.zip

Thanks, but remember, it's not a mission bug but an AI bug. It's all about how AI handles helicopters in general.

I don't know if it will help OP, but I made a MOD a while back I believe still work that adjust the head position when looking outside the door (or through it...): https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=3473897

Hi robgraham, Glad you got it working! On my way to bed now, but will have a look at the code later on, might add it as an alternative. Thank you very much!

Sorry for late reply. I know of both FSUIPC and XUIPC, but like you I don't do Visual Basic or C# and have generally very little knowledge about these things. But lets hope there is someone knowledgeable guy around who could help us with this.

I have it installed, but never thought of testing it. Good information, thanks!