Scarecrow84

DocWilly posted a series of questions and answers with an EC135 Pilot: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181563&page=3 This does not get into the odd cyclic/power dynamics (re centering of cyclic during all phases of flight, etc.) The only IRL Gazelle guy I know of wouldn't answer any specific questions, thought of it as a "toy", attacked anyone asking intelligent questions, etc. "It's fun once you stop expecting it to fly like a helicopter" - current US Army Helicopter pilot, summer 2016

Do you even translational lift, bro? :D

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bearfoot. I will try to be more sensitive for you in the future.

Bearfoot: You are the only one here engaging in breathless hysterics, Francis. I didn't say or in any way expect the sim to be modeled for my particular system. Others said the obvious control movement issues were reflective of the critics not having to-scale controls. I pointed out typical systems on the market are desktop sticks and its reasonable to assume this type of setup is what the sim is made for. Regardless of the stick throw, the dynamics are still off, but here I go using big words on you.

The Gaz in the video doesn't have the sight, no. I really doubt there would be such a huge difference in basic pitch/roll/power dynamics and control movements due to that.

The point of the GIF is to show the range of travel during a normal maneuver that, if you watch the video, is simply accelerating during level flight. The instructor pilot has his hand off the stick in the first frame, because the student is flying during that frame. His hand being off the stick is irrelevant, it still shows what the student pilot/cyclic is doing. He is giving forward cyclic while adding power/collective. The GIF shows the range of travel of the stick for that non-extreme maneuver, but the real point was that the cyclic stays in the far forward position as is typical in a helicopter. I think we can assume the simulator is designed for the joysticks that are on the market, and not modified ones with long extensions or exotic $300 models designed that way (which I would like to purchase myself, if all this gets ironed out, btw). I thought it was a given that stick extensions require axis tuning to account for the extra travel. Anyway, the range of animated stick travel in the Gazelle module looks about right to me. But, if you were to move the cyclic during flight as shown in the video, or anywhere near that, you would be nosediving into the ground. Or doing one of its signature -9g front flips (kidding, I think they fixed that...) In the sim, only a tiny fraction of that full range of motion is used for what we can see requires a much bigger fraction IRL. And in the sim, there is the odd behavior of the cyclic returning to center after every movement. Otherwise, the input will over-correct. It needs work, and insisting otherwise is only going to lessen any chance of us seeing that happen, IMO. Not to mention the standard we are setting up for the 105.

No, you're right. They claim to have some top secret video collection, so obviously one of us critics just went back in time and faked the stick movements for that 1997 documentary. As for the point about turbulence, he's not dealing with low speed turbulence but flying straight and level at high speed.

Nope. Straight and level flight:

To repeat yet again, I can fly it just fine. I made a mission for the L version with 50 ground units - APCs, infantry, etc. I can do the entire mission in one helo. In fact, the better I get at flying it, the more "off" it seems. It's not "just us". There was never this conversation regarding the Huey FM that I know of...why would that be, if we just like making stuff up? As for the stick movement, DocWilly admitted the animated stick movement in the sim is way understated relative to what we see in the IRL videos. How that maps on to the FM, who knows. But really, I give up here. The videos Holbeach posted speak for themselves.

Thanks for the interview, Doc, very interesting info regarding VRS, SAS and fenestron behavior. 6:40 You are seeing stick movement anything like this module, really? Are we seeing the same video? We were ALL bending over backwards to tell Polychop how much confidence we had in them, etc. at first. Even that was after years of waiting, but now we are 8 months and 50 bucks past that point. This is their first module. It's up to them to prove themselves to us, frankly. You know they know they have us on a leash with zero competition, right?

Hello, I'm very interested in this setup. 2 questions: Is there an estimated release date for the throttle? Would the Gunfighter and/or throttle be compatible with Saitek pedals and /or throttle? Thanks

:megalol: I'm reminded of this... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n14MBAd3R8

Thanks for posting that article, DocWilly. A few points I found interesting: "In normal operation, he cautioned, the controls are extremely light and responsive" "Even without SAS, it is more stable than the average light helicopter" But... "It's controls are so light and sensitive that if feels more like a jet fighter than a helicopter" The controls in this sim are not "light and sensitive", they are laggy. A helicopter can be relatively stable and still sensitive on the controls. BTW, I have a little time in an R22...Not much, but I paid lots of attention :)

I take this to mean the SAS holds the stick in place where it is put? Kind of like an automatic trimmer? That's what it sounds like to me, and makes sense from what I've seen in the real life videos. This is different from how the module works. In the sim, the attitude itself holds while the stick moves back to center. Big difference. From this it sounds like the most realistic setup would be a stick that is non-centering and set up with a gimbal that stays put...? Maybe like that new VKB stick that allows axis tightening... Anyway, this take on the SAS does not account for what we are seeing in the sim...forward full speed flight with a centered cyclic. Did you watch the video I posted, starting at 6:30? There is a generous range of movement forward for straight and level flight. You can see on the real life video I posted the forward stick movement at high speed is not "very slight". It's plain as day. I unchecked mine and didn't notice any difference. Also, I'm pretty sure the SAS is always on as far as the FM is concerned...not sure though.

That was the entire point of my original post. I asked our supposed real life gazelle pilot that question multiple times and he ignored it. I then found the answer in that youtube video (original post) that clearly shows the cyclic pushed forward inches from center for forward, level high speed flight. That is completely different from how the module works. We keep "beating a dead horse" because some keep making excuses for the developers and acting like the flight model is up to DCS standards. It's not.

Looks like the FFB box is actually under Miscellaneous. I had it checked before, unchecked it, and don't notice any difference. I don't have a FFB stick. I have found the Gaz can be flown straight and level at a constant speed with either slight forward cyclic or centered, depending on how you adjust collective. This tendency for attitude to stay where you put it with a centered cyclic is more pronounced in turns and quick stops. So, I think the point stands, honestly. And I still don't get why some people get bent out of shape over these flight dynamics discussions. We just want the FM to match the awesome model, systems, and weapons.

Yes, I re tested this after my original post and you are correct. Thanks for the in depth response. It does require some slight forward cyclic for sustained straight and level flight. I don't mean to cloud up the FM issue further...Might try to delete the original post. I would be interested in your overall takes on the FM though...both David and TheM. Others with more in depth knowledge than me have made better points regarding the FM.

I posed a question earlier to any IRL Gazelle pilots regarding the odd cyclic behavior of the sim. I realized early on that in order to control attitude this module requires a very different kind of cyclic input from other helicopters I am aware of. Basically, the cyclic stays centered and is sort of "bumped" in the direction you want to decrease pitch/tilt the aircraft, and then quickly returned to center. For example, in straight and level flight, I found I actually had to just move the cyclic forward initially and then return it to the center position - while adjusting collective. Most helicopters, of course, require the cyclic to stay in a forward position during straight and level flight (Hence the need for trim in the Huey, etc. I never found I even needed trim in this aircraft as the cyclic would always return to center regardless of attitude.) I found this very odd, and asked if this was how the actual aircraft works due to the the SAS or just its own aerodynamic quirks. No answer ever came, so I poured over some of the Gazelle videos on youtube and found my answer. Verdict: the cyclic behaves like a typical helicopter in this regard, as can be seen starting about 6:30 in the below video. The aircraft is in straight and level flight, and in order to accelerate the pilot moves the cyclic forward and keeps it there while adding collective. I saw another video that shows the same cyclic behavior for the roll axis in a steep turn - i.e. the cyclic stayed pushed to the side during the entire maneuver and didnt snap back to center during it. I understand we are in a waiting state for FM updates, but for some reason some keep insisting the FM is fine the way it is.

My weapons hints for the Huey wont show either, it's been that way for a while...Is there a fix for this?

Yeah, I was concerned the re-fueling infrastructure type items might be a problem. That's really good to hear that all aircraft will work.

Maybe a dumb question, but will non WW2 aircraft be able to fly in the Normandy Map? It looks great from the Spitfire video...

No one has suggested changing the FM because it's "too hard"...Overall, most have actually concluded it's too stable, among other issues. I can fly it really well myself, but am hoping to see some changes to the FM soon . Hopefully we will have some kind of "roadmap" info this week, so we can adjust our expectations.

I think it has something to do with "close air combat mode" , which I no longer find in the in game list. I had this (CACM) mapped to a button now mapped to "radar mode FWD", or something along those lines.

The cannon arm switch did the trick, thanks. I will RTFM, but something seems to have changed. I had a missile shoot off automatically (I think), after it wouldn't let me shoot manually...? Is there an automatic missile firing mode? RTFMing...:smilewink:

Thanks for the replies...I'm not at home at the minute though. I made sure the master arm was on, I will double check later. I get the "C" indicator and gunsight on the hud, but no fire when I pull the trigger. Is the cannon arm switch separate from the weapon selection button - on the row that includes all pylons? All of this has worked before. Thanks