Tim_Fragmagnet

I'll make it short and sweet before getting to the dataposting. The huey has a transmission power limit of 1158shaft horsepower, HOWEVER, the engine itself, while being capable of 1400shp, is actually limited to an N1% RPM of 101.8%, which is over 1300, not 1158, not 1100. In the DCS huey, the N1 limit for the engine is supposed to be higher than it is, but as implemented in DCS, it is 1158shp. At 100% N1 RPM the aircraft is producing 1158shp, instead of the correct higher value, this means that you are at 50psi of torque at 100% N1 RPM. The correct setup would be to have the aircraft produce 50psi of torque at 98% N1 RPM instead of 100%. Why is this relevant? This is relevant because at 98% N1 RPM on the real huey, you are only generating around 580C of EGT. That's right, at 1158shp, your transmission limit, you shouldn't even be close to overheating the engine. (At sea level, flight parameters change as your density altitude increases) As the huey is currently modeled, 98% N1 RPM actually produces about 590C, but it is also only producing about 990-1000shp. As we go up in N1 to reach 1158shp we rapidly gain EGT to the point where in quite a few flight profiles, we are overheating the engine, where we realistically shouldn't be, meaning we need to lower our power output to prevent the overheating when we shouldn't need to. As for the data 0 I also took the liberty of graphing the same data from the DCS huey and overlaying the different sets of data. As you can see by the horsepower graph, it very clearly does not line up with 5 other UH-1H engines that very clearly stay near each other minus a few stray datapoints. If we simply project our DCS data onto the real data plot and line them up, and assume the engine does just have a linear power curve all the way to 100% N1, we would reach 1333SHP. And if we consult null We can see that out of 12162.1 minutes of flight, this UH-1H spent 20 seconds at 1300shp. So the engine can in fact reach 1300shp while mounted in a huey. So 1333 doesn't seem like an unreasonable limit. The EGT comparison is also interesting, showing an underproduction of EGT at low N1 settings but an OVER production of EGT at high N1 settings. And before you question this and say "well maybe it's just modeled as an old engine". First, there is an engine resource slider, effectively an engine age/health slider already built into the game to simulate this so it shouldn't be modeled as having reduced power to begin with. Second. Taken from null Here is a graph comparing 2 sets of EGT data One set showing a new engine with only 16hours of operation before the data collection Another showing that same engine after 1939.1 hours of operation, the engine failed less than 10 hours later. Now here it is overlaid with our DCS EGT data There are plenty of other issues with the module, I would like to see this one (two?) fixed however. Our engine model has 1158shp as 100% N1 but is using an EGT curve similar to one with a higher 100% N1 limit, meaning we are getting less power for the same EGT output. 100% N1 Should be producing more power than it currently is. Some data says 1200shp at 100%, other data says 1330shp+ at 100%. Pre-production huey data states 100% N1 to be 1340shp. The EGT curve could use a little tweaking as well.

It's not an opinion, From the WSPS our huey is AT THE EARLIEST from 1982 Here's the document of them testing it on the huey specifically. But that is irrelevant, as our huey, as per the module's manual, has the composite blades installed. In the second post you see the document for them testing the composite blades, in 1988. Our huey is at the earliest from 1988.

Here's more tail rotor blade pitch data From this document

This likely depends on the pilot - weapon interface In our huey the weapon controls explicitly ask if you wish to fire the rockets or the guns In this specific UH-1C the rocket controls are actually split from the minigun controls however the selector still only allows for EITHER the rockets or the miniguns to be provided with a firing signal. Is it possible there were some hueys that could fire rockets and miniguns at the same time? Absolutely, knowing the huey's history they probably went through a bunch of different weapon control interfaces. However as it stands, for ours, being unable to fire the rockets and miniguns at the same time is correct.

The huey's main rotor is tilted 5degrees forward, but not to the side. That's why you have to tilt the whole body to counteract translating tendency, because the rotor isn't tilted to the side to innately counteract the drift caused by the tail rotor like some modern helicopters.

First, that last photo has a larger roll because it is a shortbody huey that is lighter than the 1H, so the tailrotor causes it to drift more. What you're watching with hueys hovering around airfields I can guarantee you aren't stable hovers. Hovers, yes, but they're wobbling around, and drifting. There's no way you'd see the translating tendency in all of that. Make no mistake, the huey is supposed to hover rolled slightly to the left, if you know what to look for you can spot it a bit easier. This timestamp here is a clear example of the left skid low attitude the huey hovers with And at this timestamp you can see the pilot lift off with a left skid low attitude and STILL start drifting to the right

Not quite DCS models the TORQUE produced by the tail rotor But it does not model the force that actually produces that torque. In effect it just skips a step. I do not have access to the ability to look at how the flight model actually works, so I cannot guarantee exactly how it actually works. However, from what I can gather, the forces from the tail rotor were simply modeled as a rolling torque and a rotational torque, nothing more. It does not model the fact that the tail rotor is actually physically pushing the airframe. At the end of the day, regardless of how it ACTUALLY is modeled in the game, translating tendency is not present on the module when it should be.

So how messed up does this actually make the flight model? Well we have graphs from the research into the slip indicator bug, the most important one being the lateral stability graph. Here is that graph. So we can do a bit of math, if 65% from full left is flat blade pitch for the tail rotor We can calculate that 4.45 inches from full left is flat blade pitch. Looking at the directional control position graph at the bottom there, we can see we are in trim at 4 inches from full left, or 58.8% from full left. Since the tail rotor is at flat pitch when full right in DCS, we can now calculate something very funny. If we consider 4.45inches from full left to be full right, just like it is in DCS. If we also consider we need to trim at 4 inches from full left. To properly trim the DCS huey if all of the forces were prorperly tuned, the pedals would need to be 89.8% from full left. OK but where would that put us on the graph in a real huey? Here, with the nose 29 degrees to the right Absolutely incredible. Now if we consider, the real thing is trimmed 4 inches from full left. What does that put the blade pitch at? Well at 58.8% from full left, our tail rotor blade pitch graph puts the blades at a pitch of about 2 degrees. Meaning the tail rotor is doing VERY LITTLE. This is because at speed the tailfin applies its own anti-torque force alongside the other aerodynamic effects doing similar things to either counter or lessen the required torque.

This has major implications on the flight model, to the point where the entire flight model could be considered incorrect. null This document has a lot of interesting information in it, but what we care about is this graph. This graph shows the relation between the position of the anti-torque pedals and the pitch of the blades of the tail rotor. It shows that at full left (0%), the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 18 degrees. It shows that centered (50%), the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 4 degrees. It shows that 65% from full left, the tail rotor blades have a pitch of 0 degrees, making no thrust. It shows that 100% from full left, the tail rotor blades have a pitch of -10.5 degrees, making nose right thrust. The DCS huey's tail rotor blades don't even come close to that. Here is a picture with the pedals full left. The blades have a pitch of about 22-25 degrees. Here is an image with the pedals centered. The blades have a pitch of about 10-12 degrees. Here is an image of the pedals all the way to the right. The blades have a pitch of about 0- -2 degrees, we'll assume 0 degrees and the camera isn't directly above the top of the blade so it looks a little angled. OK, so maybe you think it's just an animation error. I can prove that it is not. I can prove that is how it is modeled in the flight model. But first lets look at that graph again about 24% from full left (52% left of center) shows the blades at a pitch of around 10.5 degrees. 100% from full left (full right) shows the blades at a pitch of around 10.5 degrees in the other direction. With the helicopter stationary on the ground, either of these positions should place the exact same amount of stress on the driveshaft. This means that if we turn the governor off, both positions should reduce RPM by the same amount. Not even close. The bottom left example shows the pedals 25% from full left, considered 50% left of center, this means that the tail rotor blades will be at a SMALLER pitch than what full right should be, therefore should reduce RPM by LESS than the pedals full right would. The top middle example shows the pedals 100% from full left, all the way to the right, barely even touching the RPM, infact the RPM is slightly higher. The tail rotor, as modeled on the DCS UH-1H, is modeled incorrectly, not only visually, but also in terms of how it affects the flight model. The tail rotor is modeled as if full right pedal puts the blades at a pitch of 0 degrees. Producing no thrust. The repercussions of this encompass basically the entire flight model. With the tail rotor acting the way it does, it means that the phyiscal strength of relative torque values is entirely incorrect, and proper trim in a properly modeled aircraft would technically be impossible in some basic turns.

The copilot's attitude indicator in the DCS huey looks akin to a shrunken down version of the one the pilot gets with altered controls. The style we have is more akin to the ones present in UH-1Ns or other modern hueys. Alternatively, it does match the copilot attitude indicators used in a select few australian hueys. However the rest of the instrument layout does not. When in reality, it's supposed to be a Bendix J-8 OR a Bendix MF-2 Seen clearly here in this gulf war UH-1H (of which ours is styled to be) And here Here's all the technical data showing the UH-1H using the J8

Despite being a major function of the flight model in low speed flight, the effect known as translating tendency is not actually modeled. This effect causes the huey to require a bit of left roll to hover in place due to the force of the tail rotor pushing the entire aircraft to the right. This can be seen in these photos. This is extremely easy to test in DCS Simply put the huey into a hover in a mission with no wind. If you hover rolled to the left, translating tendency is modeled. Here is a photo showing the huey hovering completely level in DCS. null The huey DOES require a bit of left cyclic to hover in DCS, but that is only enough to counter the torque caused by the tail rotor being above the center of mass applying a twisting force to the tail. It's enough to stop the helicopter from rolling, not to stop the translating tendency that isn't modeled.

The Copilot's collective in DCS is just a copy pasted version of the pilot's collective, this is wrong. You can see what the Copilot's collective is supposed to look like in these photos and many others.

Here is documentation showing WW2 planes not having guns included in their "tare" (bare/empty) weight. You're also confusing empty weight with weight empty ___ ___ Welcome to American terminology, it's fun here. So what's more likely Between WW2 and 1986, the system and definition of measurements was changed, only to be changed back, and we just so happen to have a sabre that is 700lbs too light somehow? Or the sabre is weighed empty without guns. Even if you disagree with the gun weight, you must agree that the ammo weight is undeniably wrong from the provided ammunition data.

I also included the 1986 definition. From 1986 to 2015, and there's actually a 2019 version of 01-1B-50 now that says the same thing, and since it has not been changed, it is still the same to this day. For 36 years the definition for basic weight has included guns, therefore excluding guns from empty weight. That sets a precedent. You can't tell me it wasn't like that for another 36 years or more before that, you have to prove it. ESPECIALLY since American WW2 fighter aircraft had their empty weight measured without their guns as well. That is speculation. Prove it. I have provided plenty of evidence that shows that it is extremely likely that the sabre's empty weight was measured without the guns installed.

Speculation, maybe, but it is educated speculation, the sabre would not be the first aircraft made by the united states that would have its empty weight measured without fixed weaponry installed. WW2 fighters being a prime example. Nor would it be the last. Go look up the A-7 Corsair II, you'll find both empty weight and basic weight. Guess which one has the cannon installed. The US has a term called "basic weight" If the guns are installed, it's in the territory of basic weight, not empty weight. As per NAVAIR 01-1B-50 as of 2015 As per TM 55-1500-342-23 as of 1986 Unless you're talking about a plane where it is not included in basic weight and is actually included in operating weight. As per NAVAIR 01-1B-50 as of 2015 In both cases, guns are not included in the empty weight. Yes, gross weights are approximate because different planes weigh different amounts, but being 741lbs off is not even close to approximate, 511 if you subtract the pilot if dcs models the pilot weight after the fact. I doubt that the corrected weight of the ammo and the weight of the guns being almost exactly the correct approximate gross weight difference is a coincidence.

EDIT: The F-86F-25-40 Standard aircraft characteristics document lists an empty weight of 11125 and a basic weight of 11585, a difference of exactly 460lbs, exactly as calculated in this thread once the ammo discrepancy and pilot are taken out of the equation. EDIT: The sabre's ammunition weight is too low not because the wrong round's weight is modeled, but because a lower number of rounds are modeled. Each gun has 267 rounds instead of the intended 300. They are firing M2 API and M20 APIT, at 1 APIT to 6 API for these rounds, + the weight of the links, the total weight should come out to 530.628lbs. I will leave the original text of the OP unaltered. As per the weight listings in the sabre flight manual, sabres of the F-25 and later variants have a gross weight of around 15,175lbs. Gross weight is stated as being a full load of machine gun ammo and fuel, on top of a 230lb pilot. Those parameters in DCS bring the ingame sabre to a weight of 14,434lbs Where is the weight loss it's not fuel as that is accurate to the pound. Ammunition weight is supposed to be around 518-534lbs so there's part of the missing weight. Also the empty weight as listed is supposedly correct. But there's the issue. The empty weight of the sabre does not include the weight of the six AN/M3 .50caliber machine guns in the nose. The empty weight of the real sabre is 11,125lbs WITHOUT the guns. But lets break down the ammo weight first in DCS 100% machine gun ammo is listed as 483lbs, not sure where this number comes from That is, unless the only rounds we're firing are armor piercing incendiary, which they aren't since we have a ton of tracers. CARTRIDGE, armor-piercing-incendiary, cal. .50, T49 0.23lbs per round 1800 rounds 414lbs, but that's not all, the links between the rounds are 0.038lbs each and there are 1806 of them another 68.628lbs bringing the ammo weight to 482.628 then the UI rounds it to 483. This is wrong, as we are clearly firing tracers, which at minimum are 0.24lbs per round if they're also armor-piercing and incendiary, which would bring the weight to 500.628lbs. However lets assume it's simple In game the sabre appears to fire 1 tracer after 5 non tracers, so 1 tracer every 6th round lets simplify it to the calculation of bullets alone for 1 gun and make the rounds simple tracer and ball/AP as ball/AP are both the same weight 300 rounds 50 are tracers, 0.25lbs per round = 12.5lbs 250 are ball/AP, 0.26lbs per round = 65lbs combined that's 77.5lbs for all 1800 rounds that's 465lbs Including the 68.628lbs from the 1806links that's 533.628lbs thus 51lbs more than our current in game listing of 483 (482.628)lbs there is 51 of the 741 missing pounds 690lbs left What is included in the gross weight of the aircraft? lets take a look "Approximate gross weights include pilot (230 pounds), full internal fuel (JP-4), and 1800 rounds of ammunition. so 690lbs left, lets take 230lbs away to account for the pilot 460lbs left, where is it. It's not the fuel, the fuel is accurate to the pound. It's the guns null 64.5lbs for the gun without the recoil adapter assembly and presumably without the barrel as well 4.5lbs for the recoil adapter assembly 10.91lbs for the barrel 75.41lbs per gun without the recoil adapter, or 452.46lbs for 6 guns, 7.54lbs under our remaining weight 79.91lbs per gun with the recoil adapter, or 479.46lbs for 6 guns, 19.46lbs over our remaining weight I'm not sure what the recoil adapter actually is so, lets assume it's used, now lets assume instead of ball/ap, the non tracer rounds are actually API, which weigh 0.01lbs less per round, IE 15lbs less for 1500 rounds we are now only 4.46lbs overweight But, what if the tracers are actually armor-piercing-incendiary-tracers, which also weigh 0.01lbs less per round, IE 3lbs less for 300 rounds We are now only 1.46lbs overweight Seems "approximate" enough to me Solution, increase empty weight by 479.46lbs and another 230lbs if the pilot weight isn't modeled after the fact, and then increase the ammunition weight to a rate that coincides with the type and amount of rounds being used in the belts.

@TrevorMcNeillthe details are all in the thread but I'll summarize here again the DCS huey sees the slip indicator centered with the pedals to the left at cruise speeds, however real hueys of the same model fly with the pedals to the right with the ball centered. Both visual evidence and actual flight engineer data corroborate this. DCS is wrong on that front, by a fairly large margin, the real thing wants the pedals to the right with the ball centered at speeds as low as 25knots. The next front is how it flies In DCS with the ball centered, it flies with a fairly large amount of right sideslip, for many helicopters this is realistic, but once again, actual flight engineer data shows that the real thing flies with no sideslip with the ball centered, if not with a small amount of LEFT sideslip If you move the DCS huey pedals to the realistic position, you fly mostly straight, in a realistic manner. It also relieves the pilot of a large amount of uncharacteristic wobbling and instability. But the ball is to the left. Meaning that in terms of this problem, the flight model itself is not at fault, it is the slip indicator incorrectly asking for the pedals to be to the left. That is the entire issue, the slip indicator is broken and nothing else.

@TrevorMcNeillwhile your post is quite detailed, it says a lot, without saying much that hasn't already been said over the course of the thread. It's just all condensed into one post. It also makes the mistake of assuming all helicopters are the same, and that they act the same under different flight profiles. Yes, your listed effects will generally be the same for every helicopter with a counter clockwise rotor. Yes, while in the presence of wind, your ground track and nose heading will likely not be the same with the ball centered. However, without the wind, that is not true for every helicopter. Different helicopters have different forces acting upon them in flight, some less balanced than others. In the case of the huey, in forward (and apparently even rearward) flight, there are enough forces acting upon the aircraft that translating tendency is effectively completely cancelled out. However, on something like an apache, translating tendency is nowhere near cancelled out by the forces generated by forward flight. You want raw data proof? Here is flight engineer data from a clean UH-1H flight showing the control positions at different sideslip angles in level flight with the shaded data points showing where the controls are when the ball is centered. Now how about data for something like an apache? Yes, the apache does fly with a right sideslip with the ball centered. It's about 6-6.5degrees. The fun part is that the huey actually flies with 0.5degrees of LEFT sideslip. And as a reminder, this thread wasn't originally about the sideslip, it was actually about the position of the pedals with the ball centered, which has already been proven to be wrong, while the overall flight model appears to be correct. In short, the slip indicator is not taking the aerodynamic forces of forward and rearward flight into account.

The Mi8 manual covers this. It's the overall status of the engine, 90% is a brand new engine after installation on the aircraft. 100% is an engine on a test bench before the transmission losses of the aircraft. From page 408 of the Mi8 manual Also, nice necro but hey what can you do.

The Apache IS supposed to fly with quite a noticeable crab, but it appears it is a bit too much and the discrepancy gets worse with speed. This might be the reason why. If the apache's implementation of the slip indicator is anything like the huey's, the problem is that it does not take the aerodynamic effects of speed into account. As the helicopter speeds up, the tail rotor gains power, and the tailfin applies its own antitorque force to the helicopter. this should cause the ball to move right as you gain speed. A simple test, turn off any flight assists you can, and put the apache into a hover, then without touching the collective or pedals, nose forward to gain speed and translational lift, the nose will probably move to the left, if the slip indicator doesn't move to the right in response to this, you have your answer. As you gain even more speed than that, you're likely pulling more collective, and thus more torque, causing the ball to move even farther to the left, exaggerating the crabbing when you follow the ball. In the case of our huey module, it causes it to fly with a crab when there should be none and destabilizes the entire aircraft. In the case of our apache, it would appear that it causes an increasing error in the amount of crabbing that there is supposed to be. The increase in left pedal requirement as you raise the collective is correct, but the problem is that you're being asked to push the pedals to the left of a position that was already too far to the left due to not going to the right first. Eventually the natural anti torque gains from the tailfin and tail rotor at high speeds are outweighed by the additional torque of a higher collective. These likely aren't valid reference for a 64D, but here are some documents showing this effect on a 64A Here is a document showing the control positions in trimmed low speed flight, you can see the directional control moving to the right as the helicopter gains speed, with a total travel of 5.6 inches, 2.8 inches from full left sees the pedals centered In this document showing the control positions in trimmed level flight, here you can see the rightward pedal requirement continuing all the way to 90knots, even though the collective started being raised after 60knots. And here you can see that in trim "slip indicator centered" the 64A flies with about 6 degrees of sideslip in the specified parameters at the top.

This issue had already obtained the "investigating" tag by staff, however I have recently changed the title of the thread to something more accurate, which has removed that tag from from the title, it is still there in the tags list however. I just wanted thorough proof to be placed within the thread. At this point the thread has Photo / video evidence, and literal flight engineer data proof, I've also had plenty of word of mouth confirmation from flight engineers and actual huey crew members on my own time as well. I declare it to be a complete report and that anyone saying it's wrong should read it all again. There's a lot of confusion in this thread, I barely knew what was going on when I first looked into this myself, I was just someone noticing a pattern that wasn't being followed. For anyone who still doesn't quite understand what's going on, don't worry, this is NOT a simple topic/concept, just know that the real UH-1H has specific patterns in its flight dynamics that the DCS module's instruments do not follow, in turn causing it to fly wonky if flown by the instruments.

So I have gone on quite the journey of research and information gathering. I have spoken with some very interesting people and looked through some interesting documents, and they all point to the same thing, the slip indicator is modeled wrong in DCS. It also uncovered some other very serious concerns about the module as a whole, things like the de-ice reducing available power by almost 3x as much as it's supposed to, the overall performance of the aircraft being too high in most situations, and the fact that a large portion of the huey files are named AB212 after the italian twin engined UH-1N, but I won't go into detail on those here as that is not what this bug report is about. I'm here to provide undeniable proof that the huey cruises with the pedals to the right. @fapador had provided charts of the control positions for hueys in forward flight, however those charts were of a huey with experimental equipment installed. Now, while that huey with the experimental infrared equipment is stated to have "essentially unchanged handling" in its document, I wasn't happy with just that, I wanted it to be unquestionable. So I located that document, and others like it. It turns out that the flight engineers had the foresight to run the data twice, once with their experiment installed, and once with the huey in a clean configuration. I have compiled the most relevant charts of this data. Not only are the proceeding sets of data gathered from clean hueys, but they are from 2 separate hueys. Minus the variance from differences in the test variables and the aircraft themselves such as physical control limit differences, weight, density altitude, center of gravity, etc, this is 2 separate hueys, showing the same data, their serial numbers are provided. The first set of data is much like what fapador posted, the positions of the controls while in trimmed level forward flight. null To simplify this, "directional control" is the anti-torque control, and it has about 6.8 inches of total travel, it is measured as "inches from full left" meaning if the datapoints are at 3.4 inches, the pedals are centered, if they are above 3.4 inches, they are to the right. Calibrated airspeed is at the bottom of the charts. The only datapoint below centered pedals is the 112knot datapoint for the second chart. IE, data gathered from a huey at a weight of 8980lbs. The heavier the aircraft, the more torque is required, and thus the more left pedal is required. The pedals only go to the left at a very high weight and at high speed with the collective raised by nearly 7 inches. You'll notice that before that, the pedals are nearly at least 1 inch to the right of center, in the case of the first chart, even more than that. Lets complicate things. These charts depict data gathered from hueys in flight with the collective remaining in the same position across the entire set of data. I see data showing hueys flying at 90-110 knots with pedals that are 3.6-4 inches from full left, ie 0.2-0.6 inches to the right, at a weight of 8960-9306lbs. Now I just got done saying that the pedals were to the left because of the huey being at a high weight load. Why is this one saying they are to the right at an even higher weight. That is because these hueys are flying without the increase in torque from a high collective setting. So yes, again, more collective DOES MEAN the pedals should be more to the left. However at the same time, it very clearly shows that the huey flies with pedals to the right in most situations. Now how about a change of pace. This is a chart depicting how the aircraft performs in a sideslip. One huey, 2 situations, the square datapoints are at 66knots, the circular data points are at 97 knots. The Shaded datapoints are there to represent a trimmed state. IE the slip indicator is centered. I'm seeing pedals to the right in a trimmed state. Not only that, I'm seeing a trimmed state with a slip angle of about -0.5 degrees. not even remotely close to what the DCS huey flies with in trim. The huey flies mostly straight with the slip indicator centered. Yes, there are situations where the slip indicator will be centered but you will be crabbing, but not in normal flight. If you're thinking "oh they just mean trim as in not crabbing, not with the slip indicator centered", I have proof of otherwise. Here's the first proof The trim state is very clearly not 0 degrees of slip. Not enough? The trim state isn't even touching the zero degrees line. Somehow still not enough? You want worded proof that they use the slip indicator ball as the trim reference? Ballwidths from trim It is undeniable, these documents use the slip indicator as the measurement of trim. As a sidenote, that last one is far from a clean huey, it's just there to provide the worded proof of the slip indicator being used to trim, that huey actually has a massive radar dish on the right side, do not use that for flight performance reference. Also, if you're questioning the source of all this data These are the 2 main sources but there are others for secondary knowledge. So. NOT ONLY, does the huey fly with the pedals to the right in most situations, but it also flies almost perfectly straight with no sideslip with the slip indicator centered. So what's happening with the DCS huey? At this point I believe I know. As you gain speed, several things happen in relation to this The tail rotor gains power The tail fin starts generating its own anti torque due to its shape The slipstream of air over the airframe wants to force the tail behind the body of the aircraft (also known as weathervaning). Like the fins on a dart or arrow keeping it flying straight. If the pedals remained untouched, all 3 of these things combined would cause the nose to kick left, and the slip indicator to move to the right. In game, the nose DOES kick left if you don't correct with the pedals, as far as I can tell, the flight model IS CORRECT. If you ignore the slip indicator and fly with the pedals to the right in dcs, you even get that left skid low attitude for straight level flight. However the slip indicator does not move to the right. Why? That is because the slip indicator is mostly tied to the collective, it is mostly tied to the amount of torque you are generating, this isn't wrong, this mostly works, but the flaw is that it is completely ignoring the aerodynamic effects of forward (or even rearward) flight. These aerodynamic effects start immediately upon gaining speed, they don't wait until you reach cruise, they don't wait until you have entered translational lift. The flight model seems to includes these, but the slip indicator does not take them into account. In short, the slip indicator is incorrect at ANY forward speed. It is now entirely unquestionable, the slip indicator does not work properly. It has been almost a decade, I don't think it has ever worked. Please, I think it's time. Note: I have changed the title to more accurately reflect the nature of the issue which has in turn cleared the "investigating" prefix tag from the title, if someone could return it to its place I would appreciate it. @Flappie

Complying with the slip indicator has lead to exaggerated crabbing since 2016 and possibly earlier, and still does. The slip indicator being centered with the pedals to the left is literally the issue reported with this thread. It's something wrong with the module that should be corrected.

I'm not sure what gives you that impression, in no way is it working even remotely as it should. I recommend you go over the information in the thread again.

Admiki It's only a matter of time until you realize that to be in aerodynamic trim on the slip indicator means to have all lateral forces equalized, and by doing so, means that you will line up the nose of your aircraft with the flow of air. Will it be a perfect 1:1 heading with your ground track? No, almost never, but it will be relatively close if there isn't any wind. If you're crabbing due to translating tendency, air is slamming into the side of your helicopter causing a lateral acceleration in the opposite direction of the flow of air, meaning the ball wants to go into the flow of air. As you pedal into the flow of air, it reduces both, the force of translating tendency, and the volume of air pushing on the side of the helicopter, until eventually the forces reach equilibrium. With the nose of the helicopter pointed nearly directly into the flow of air. It's also a matter of time until you understand that the body of the helicopter does not need to be rolled at all for the rotor to be tilted to the side to counteract translating tendency. The body of the helicopter merely hangs from the rotor, nothing more. You are not controlling where the body of the helicopter goes, you are controlling where the rotor wants to go, the body simply follows it, the body of the helicopter rolls because the rotor itself is trying to move/roll in that direction. This means that in straight level flight the center of mass of the helicopter will want hang straight under the rotor or slightly behind it. To a point, it doesn't matter how far to the side the rotor is tilted, if the rotor is still going perfectly straight, there is no lateral acceleration on the body of the helicopter, therefore the body of the helicopter hangs freely. The reason the huey is known for hovering with a (very small) amount of left roll is, yes, due to translating tendency, but in forward flight, that left skid low tendency is basically completely nullified by the forces of flight. If you still deny this, then I demand you show us with screenshots of you doing it in DCS. Prove to us that you even own the module. I'm going to clear this up once again, no, a centered slip indicator is not meant line you up exactly with your ground track. Helicopters with tail rotors do have some sideslip, even when properly trimmed, it's just the nature of the beast, but it's generally not much, and DEFINITELY not as much as the DCS huey. The problem with the DCS Huey's slip indicator is that it asks for the pedals to the left, instead of pedals to the right, and that when centered, you are crabbing by such an unrealistic amount that it's actually visibly detrimental to the flight performance of the aircraft in game. I'm not sure about the apache, but the huey's slip indicator is so broken it's not even funny anymore.