gospadin

I agree with what you feel. There's definitely some physics oddities.

Depends on where the Helo CG is.

the purpose of a beta test is to find the bugs and report them, so RAZBAM can fix them if we don't report them, they'll never get fixed

have you posted this in the M-2000C bug section?

Grey like the tail? Or russian blue?

Count me i for sure. I fly all helos, order of preference would be Mi-8 > Huey > Gazelle.

I'm genuinely surprised the current behaviors were confirmed. They would appear to defy the basic physics of helicopter flight, specifically attempts to reach an equilibrium with various amounts of cyclic input.

What's the name of the autopilot that's trying to kill you every time Yevgeni takes his eyes off the controls?

FYI, sensor_data.getBarometricAltitude() always returns 0 when I ground start in NTTR. If I air-start, my altitude is correctly returned from my sensors. --gos

This is what I find odd (been thinking of how to phrase it for a while...) and this is my understanding of what "should" happen: When I apply cyclic in any direction, what the controls should be doing is increasing the effective lifting force on the opposite side of the rotor disc. (ignore precession for now). If I push forward, the swashplate tilts causing the blades in the rear (yes, 90 degrees before the rear with precession) of the disc to increase pitch, to provide more lift on the rear of the disc relative to the front. Assuming I start from a hover, where the lifting force is balanced with the force of gravity through the CG, the above increase in lift at the rear of the disc will apply torque to the body of the helicopter into a nose-down attitude through the rotor mast. This torque will start to tilt the body of the helicopter nose-down, until the movement of the CG to the aft relative to the input vector cancels the asymmetric lifting force, and the body stabilizes at a new nose-down attitude. If I apply more cyclic in the same direction, the force increases, and the balance point of the helicopter's CG relative to the rotor mast should be further away. However, this balance point should still exist. Note that as I pitch over further, I should have to add collective (increase the lift of the entire disc) to stay at the same altitude, because the vertical component of my lift vector is being moved to the horizontal component. For most any input (prior to achieving translational lift), I should have a pretty clear relationship between cyclic input and rotor disc pitch. So I guess the question is, does the gazelle have a FBW system that interprets control input to actually move the mechanical linkages? Is the CG too high (thus making the balance point very hard to find)? On 1.5.3, flying at about 2000m of altitude with 2/3 fuel and only two HOT missiles, the helo was incredibly unstable in the pitch axis, constantly rolling forward and back seemingly independent of my inputs. What I feel in the Gazelle is that a specific amount of cyclic input does NOT correspond to a consistent amount of swashplate movement. I don't know how they model their blade sections and the forces on each piece, but yea, definitely wierd. --gos btw, if my understanding of helicopter physics is wrong, please correct me. My IRL flight experience is limited to fixed wing aircraft.

You can use those oscillations too: [ame] [/ame]

Might want to make a thread in the SA342 skin folder. Nice work though uboats!

I don't believe that's new.

If that's the case, there must be some kind of rotor clutch we can disengage, though shouldn't it auto-disengage below 29,000 RPM?

Yup, I have 3 copies and typically create a 4th on patch day. Is the manifest something that only ED/official partners can generate?

Oh yea, it works just fine. Sith: My productive "feature request" is to allow server admins to have a way to decide which mods are mandated for their servers, and which mods are not. I should be able to allow the missile mod, and allow new aircraft, without allowing changes in visibility if I choose. Some kind of specification language: default: unmodified modified: file c - hash: 098abd4356da0 unrestricted: directory Mods/aircraft/<new> or similar...

I agree you're correct. I've never heard of an aircraft where pushing "forward" on the trim hat will move your nose up.

The presence of our HoggitDev A-4 module triggers the "impure client" and won't let me join protected servers. I have no way to generate the protected manifest file. =\ I have to uninstall it every time I want to take a break from development. Annoying...

Their textures are split into 200+ files, a template will be a bit of a pain to create. A :beer: to whoever makes one.

100% agree. I am glad I bought the module. I am excited for its future. Out-of-the-gate, for an "early access" model, it's extremely functional. I hope everyone who reads my suggestions for improvement in the flight model sees in those suggestions my (and others') passion and interest in the module and its future. If the module sucked and we weren't having fun, we would just wash our hands of it and move on.

50% cyclic saturation, 0% curves 70% rudder saturation, 0% curves

If you have a specific piece of feedback regarding a shape issue in the pictures we've shown, please PM archimaede or one of the rest of us and we'll see what we can do. If you have a photo as data, even better. --gos

I'm sure the nosegear can collapse. I don't know how or if we can model a failed nose gear lock. In most of those landings, they're properly landing on the mains but the nose gear simply folds back up into the nose of the plane. In one, it went backwards due to an apparent on-nose landing at night, but it's hard to tell.

This is an interesting observation about the nose pitch and the forces of the rotor disc appearing symmetric. It would explain the lack of blowback felt, and a few other things. When I apply more collective, and speed increases, I expect to have to push the stick more forward. RE: collective, abrupt changes in collective don't seem to affect engine output, as if there's no back torque applied to the engine by the additional blade drag/force. Additionally, in all other helos, when you hover, you need to apply some side cyclic, to counter the lateral thrust of the tail rotor. The amount of side cyclic input that the gazelle needs is almost zero, which is odd because of both the weight of the helo and the amount of rudder input needed to hover. With that much rudder countering the rotation force, I'd expect to need more side cyclic.

I have the saitek combat pedals, and 70% saturation gives me plenty of rudder authority. The point of highest deflection will be a right-rotation while hovering. Most everything else you do will require less deflection. 70% saturation means I hover with about half pedal deflection to the right, which is still more-or-less comfortable, without being too twitchy. As to the "real" thing, real helicopter pedals don't auto-center, so you'd simply need to take out your centering spring.