Coordinated turns vs. FM

[Flagrum]

And what many FF user would like is different effects for weapons like naturally cannon, rockets and missiles has different profile. A shakes, stalls and so on.

I strongly disagree. This was discussed also at several other occassions: the stick is decoupled from the airframe by the hydraulics system and there is no feedback transferred back to it. This is at least true for i.e. the Mi-8, Huey and Ka-50 - as well as the majority of fixed wing aircraft. I believe, the Gazelle is no exception in this regard.

 

Think of if ... the magnetic brake system is also called "artificial feel system" as it adds resistance to the stick movement ... which otherwise would not be there at all.

 

Also important: the built in effects are all completely bogus. Too exaggerated and to strong. I believe one of the FC3 aircraft uses the gun-fireing effect. You barely can hit a barn with that ... as the effect makes it virtually impossible to hold your aim constant at where you want it ...

 

So I strongly advise, that only the magnetic brake effect (resistance and dampening of the stick movement, turned off as long as the trim button is depressed) will be implemented in the Gazelle.

[Rogue Trooper]

I am not to sure where this discussion is going in regards to the DCS Gazelle. Should we compromise the flight model to benefit the greater good?

 

Should our new module accommodate the casual user?

 

Should our chopper be designed with the desk top user with his/her stick on the desk with his/her twisty yaw stick?

 

What about our serious chopper simmers?

Those lucky bastards that spend thousands of dollars on chopper specific controllers... what do we do for them once the rush of a "new module" chatter and complaints is over and forgotten?

What does the true SIM chopper pilot have left to "play" with after that?

 

What do we do?

 

Is this a sim for the casual players or the big boys?

 

I fly Gazelle 2.0 and not once in its life span has it been updated.... not once! 1.5 was updated a bunch of times and my guess after a "mass feedback" some 20 seconds after release.

This is not the way to create a perfect module.

 

I put in the hard work on this module, and then and only then could I get the co-ordinated turns out of her (and I am still working on her).

 

I can now pull this girl into a tight position quickly amongst buildings and trees (2.0) to obtain a firing solution against the crafty T-80, the majority of the time the T-80 fires a missile after I launch a Hot missile, but what a toe to toe engagement it is.... the Gazelle is a supreme hunting machine against its prey.. A true whites of the eyes kind of thing.

 

At no point do I believe the flight model impedes me, indeed in comparison to all modules that proceeded, she is easier to control and forget.

I do not know why I think this and others do not... it does worry me.

 

Without doubt take off forward drift is a problem.

I can trim a hover with a much lower rear ward trim than I need to trim rear to eradicate the drift forward at take off, this is a problem.

 

Initially I thought the pedals was a problem, but the more I research the Gazelle the more it appears not so. (this does not apply to net torque).

 

So where are we right now?

Edited June 10, 2016 by Rogue Trooper

[Flagrum]

RT, just because you manage to fly her ok, it does not mean that the FM is perfect. And just because I and others have troubles (some more, some less) means the FM is totally borked. And it also does not mean that we want an "easy mode". But there are some things going on with the FM, that could need some tuning. I mean, if that were not the case, then this module were the very first that got a FM right straight from day one. Knowing DCS and knowing software development, I can guarantee you that this is virtually impossible.

 

So I would suggest, we wait for Polychop's announced FM tweaks to be released by ED eventually, before we pick this discussion up again in more detail.

**********

08 June 2016

**********

- Added SA342L model featuring Gun, Rockets, new camera with only daytime view, no NVG, rockets recoil to be corrected later

- Added additionnal SA342L separated manual

- Now both internal cockpit pilots bodies can be hidden using RShift+P key in sequence

- Corrected Flight Model in turns

- Corrected Flight Model in dives

- Corrected HOT3 missile to explode as soon as wire is cut

- Corrected Rotor torque behavior depending on speed

- Corrected pitch and roll stick sensitivity

- Corrected helicopter skids behavior at ground

- Helicopter still has an issue landing in grass, WIP

- Now external pilots bodies don't show when helicopter is set as uncontrolled in ME

- External copilot body is still visible when helicopter is set as static in ME, will be fixed later

- Corrected campaign missions to keep player current stage

- Corrected COMB warning at Alarm panel and manual accordingly

- Corrected Flares now reload when rearming

- Corrected Engine sound not to change while in Torque test

- Corrected Trimming with Magnetic brake

- Corrected wool wire to correctly reflect wind direction

- Corrected NADIR VENT parameter to display absolute direction the wind comes from

- Corrected SAS authority during turns

[Rogue Trooper]

I would agree with this as it simply implies an ability to adapt to a model that is presented but still may be incorrect.

 

This is perhaps a truth... perhaps.

[Fri13]

I strongly disagree. This was discussed also at several other occassions: the stick is decoupled from the airframe by the hydraulics system and there is no feedback transferred back to it. This is at least true for i.e. the Mi-8, Huey and Ka-50 - as well as the majority of fixed wing aircraft. I believe, the Gazelle is no exception in this regard.

 

Think of if ... the magnetic brake system is also called "artificial feel system" as it adds resistance to the stick movement ... which otherwise would not be there at all.

 

 

 

Helicopter without trimmer will have unlinked cyclic that just hangs there. Let go and it will fall and so does helicopter.

 

Trimmer couples the cyclic to airframe so you can let go from cyclic. That is the point of trimmer. It links cyclic to airframe. When helicopter moves, trimmed cyclic will move with it.

 

You are not linked to airframe, you just are attached to it with belts. So when helicopter turns, you will move as separate mass object inside helicopter.

 

Helicopter without trimming had cyclic that is like any passenger, no other linkage than cyclic is attached to floor and it will fall of not hold in hands.

 

Trimmed cyclic will stay in position where it was trimmed, and every motion that is delivered to fuselage, will transmit to cyclic.

 

Non-trimmer cyclic will not stay in place, and doesn't deliver any motion that is delivered to fuselage trough it. Only pilot motion is.

 

This is slightly different based cyclic design, like R44 cyclic just hangs in the air and doesn't even care motion on Y axis. As cyclic really moves up and down as well.

 

But cyclic that is just a stick, will still feed motion in up/down as the cyclic can't extend our compress, trimmed or not.

 

And what i many with effects was that multiple ones are used as should, not that just one for everything like you see in cheaply made games.

 

And different fuselage motions feel differently. And requires different effects. And good way to see what is possible is to check the demos to get idea what different ways are possible.

[Flagrum]

What I meant with "decoupled" was, that due to the nature of the hydraulics, there is no direkt link to the rotor and controlling surfaces. Forces acting upon the blades and the rotor are not transfered back to the stick.

 

I mean, yes, the stick is mounted at the cabin bottom and if the whole fuselage vibrates, the stick must vibrate too ... at least vertically. But so does your body as well - probably cancelling out much of this relative motions...?

 

But I am only a layman here, AlphaOneSix (i think) explains it all much better. I just took for me, that there is not much sensorical feedback available at the stick.

[Fri13]

I am not to sure where this discussion is going in regards to the DCS Gazelle. Should we compromise the flight model to benefit the greater good?

 

We need to understand that flight model and input/output are different things.

 

Flight model is about aircraft in air and it mass, shape, motion etc is affecting how it moves. Input and output is about connecting our controls to this virtual aircraft so how or physical control movement is outputted to this virtual aircraft.

 

FM can be as realistic as possible, but I/O can be wrong.

 

It can't be right that joystick with 35cm extension with defaults has so strong output that 1-2mm input causes aircraft to easily flip. And that virtual pilot is required to alter the I/O values to 1/5-1/4 to get same output as other modules gives with defaults (remember, only Gazelle is affected from this).

 

If the output for the input is correct, then real pilot in a real aircraft couldn't move cyclic than just same 1-2mm. And do that accurate moves in shaking and moving helicopter and you are a master. But as is seen in real Gazelle cockpit videos, they move cyclic in hover and low speeds even 5-10cm with just very small outputs. And that is just like with every other helicopter in reality basically. And that is with other modules in DCS for virtual reality.

 

They are going to check the defaults for input and output, as now if one needs to limit cyclic to 1/5th of its range, means the is no way to fly it in more cyclic required situations.

 

And i am not only one having this problem.

 

And i am not taking about FM.

 

I am not taking my skills to operate helicopter by my heart (when you flu helicopter in real life, you must master the flight controls).

 

But now doing the coordinated turns and even good hover is like something is wrong. As when helicopter just suddenly flips over while it shouldn't, there is something strange going.

 

It isn't about those who use twist stick or fly without pedals etc. I don't care about them as it is their problem to fly something way it shouldn't be.

[gospadin]

I agree with Fri13. A nimble helicopter doesn't necessarilly mean that you only move the stick a few mm to achieve a steep turn.

[NeilWillis]

Flight models evolve over time, that is a simple fact of life.

 

Another fact is that each installation will need tweaking to get the inputs to mimic accurately the real world inputs.

 

An update is coming that will affect the way the Gazelle behaves in turns too.

 

I suggest that the issue is down to 3 factors. Flight modelling requiring fine tuning (which will go on for a long time to come yet). Your own inputs needing just as much work. And finally, the way you interpret and make control inputs.

 

With the best will in the world, you are sitting at a desk, at home, flying pixels on a screen using artificial controllers which themselves have a lot of quirks.

 

Making rational observations, and allowing Polychop to continue to research and develop the flight model while it is in beta, will gradually zero in on the optimal flight model.

[CHPL]

If you never ben flown a real helicoter, on the PC you may use any kind of flight control you want. 25 years ago I flow RC helicopters first. My Remote control persists out of a box with two small joysticks. Everyone used the same. Iven I hand Nick and yaw control on the raid hand and roll and collective on the left I was able to fly the RC- helicopter model.

In Japan and the US they used a single Stick Remote control Nick and Roll control by lean the stick, yaw by twisting it and collective pull it or press it. For me, abnormal but that’s the way they learned it.

 

First of all the Gazzele is still work in progress and Polyshop may adjust some Parameters in the future.

 

But concerning control movement and actual aircraft movement there are many misinterpretations.

I recommend watching the following Video

,especially the part with the Gazelle starting at 8:09 min.

If a Pilot moves the cyclic during hover or not, depends, and you will be surprised, on his, or his Flight instructor’s weight and if he has experienced a lack of Aircraft performance during flight training or not.

I am well beyond 100 kg and when flying for example an R22 with a passenger or a Student I am complained most times a lack of performance. Moving the cyclic more than necessary, in combination with hot weather, and the aircraft refuses to hover.

On the other Hand, well below 100 kg fellow colleges, under the same conditions, destroying performance by unnecessary stir the collective, still had enough power left.

What I mean is, you can’t evaluate flight characteristics or a whole Flight Model on the basis of the cyclic movement’s maid by the Pilot. And of cause, this is no judgement about Pilot skills at all!!

 

As a Pilot I was first absolute disappointed by the behavior of the Gazzele, because I assumed if the flight model in the “SIMULATOR” is correct I have to be able to fly it without changes in Flight control behavior. I totally underrated the differences in perceptions. It is much more difficult to fly a helicopter, even with a correct FM, on a PC Simulator, then in real life. Actually its similar, but not the same! That’s a fact. It tucks me a lot more time for habituation to compensate the Lack of sensor inputs from my body.

 

After a few weeks “training” I do very well, even if I still believe she is a little bit to reactive in overcoming mass inertia.

Most of you want just to have fun with DCS with a touch of realistic feeling, and not, of cause a frustrating sense of realistic behavior.

So any changes in Flight control behavior “ON YOUR PC”, made to fulfill your needs, are not just fin, they are simply necessary and legitimate.

Edited June 11, 2016 by CHPL

[Mt5_Roie]

Just curios to what made you choose 35cm for the extension size. I think the biggest one I've seen on a thrustmaster is 20 cm.

 

As for the FM, we are tweaking it based on conversations with real Gazelle pilots. Our goal is to make the FM as realistic as possible, and we will continue to do so.

 

Since nobody at home has the actual Gazelle inputs, adjustments might need to be made to mimic the real inputs with your joysticks. I don't have an extension on my thrustmaster yet,but I fly pretty much with no curves and can fly along fine. But with other helicopters, I have to add curves and make adjustments to make it flyable for me.

 

To summarize:

 

FM: getting tweaked to make more realistc

Inputs: Unless you own a Gazelle, inputs will need to be adjusted to match real gazelle characteristics

Gun and Rockets: Coming soon!

Dan Quale: Still gaining acceptance.

 

It can't be right that joystick with 35cm extension with defaults has so strong output that 1-2mm input causes aircraft to easily flip. And that virtual pilot is required to alter the I/O values to 1/5-1/4 to get same output as other modules gives with defaults (remember, only Gazelle is affected from this).

[Fri13]

Just curios to what made you choose 35cm for the extension size. I think the biggest one I've seen on a thrustmaster is 20 cm.

 

I metered couple helicopter cyclic and then tested for output without curves or saturation feeling to be realistic enough.

And then final decision to cut little shorter was to make it work with fighters to little better as those required too much joystick movements forward (Su-27 trimmed often was slightly too uncomfortable to hold). Joystick base ia attached on plate that is lowered about 20 cm below chair sitting level so chair can rotate and move. And this brought joystick nicely just above a level of legs so i can rest hand on leg and do small movements.

 

The are some who has extensions from floor but those are very tall ones and requires increasing sensitivity and hit legs easily. I can do full joystick movement while feet on pedals without moving legs to get full joystick range.

 

I should shorten the extension by 1-2 cm but instead going to make a extendable one so i can make stick between 15-35 cm depending aircraft and person.

[Fri13]

 

But concerning control movement and actual aircraft movement there are many misinterpretations.

I recommend watching the following Video

,especially the part with the Gazelle starting at 8:09 min.

If a Pilot moves the cyclic during hover or not, depends, and you will be surprised, on his, or his Flight instructor’s weight and if he has experienced a lack of Aircraft performance during flight training or not.

I am well beyond 100 kg and when flying for example an R22 with a passenger or a Student I am complained most times a lack of performance. Moving the cyclic more than necessary, in combination with hot weather, and the aircraft refuses to hover.

On the other Hand, well below 100 kg fellow colleges, under the same conditions, destroying performance by unnecessary stir the collective, still had enough power left.

What I mean is, you can’t evaluate flight characteristics or a whole Flight Model on the basis of the cyclic movement’s maid by the Pilot. And of cause, this is no judgement about Pilot skills at all!!

 

That is right, but you get the basic difference idea what is the target range. And if not being in real Gazelle, it is impossible, videos being best we have (2x 70-80kg pilots).

 

The helicopters are nasty surprise for many pilot as the cyclic movement range changes so easily and even quickly. And many passengers in Carter flights can get angry when pilot needs to command who sits where and that movements during flights not allowed in specific phases of flight or with specific weights. As sudden unwanted CG change in sudden unwanted wind conditions and cyclic can lose its range and.... Why it is better to buckle passengers on their seats.

 

But i would go for a good defaults of input without extensions and then let virtual pilots to change from that by adding sensitivity or so. Just meaning that if input is from -65000 to +65000 then max input is what real cyclic would do at that range.

 

I don't know how DCS I/O system works by if cyclic is given movement of XxY output then it must be 100%x100% range scale of input.

[CHPL]

Sorry, but I am not able to follow your argumentation.

Iven if a video is the best you have, Roie pointed out his source of information are real pilots.

Of cause, just take to them may be not 100% aureate.

 

Wot I try to say was, you can’t use a video, regardless of Pilots weight, as a guideline for the need of control inputs. I Mention Pilots weight, only for an example why different Pilots develop different technics, and as many Pilots you monitor, as many different technics you may witness.

 

To calculate GW, and decide whichever Passenger may sit on which seat, is what “all Pilots” or (there Ground Flight assistant) do bevor every flight, especially in small aircraft. In a HU-1 may be more freedom to do so, as in a Gazelle and with experience you may take such dissensions by estimating and not calculating, but you always will do that. Flying sightseeing trips in a Bell 206, my Ground Crew usually had made the decisions and assigns any Passenger to his seat. But still I had the final decision; and sometimes on seat was empty because of that.

And of cause in small aircraft you buckle passengers to their seats, to prevent them from moving around and not only for the case of turbulence or impact.

 

But back to the topic, all of that has no Influence in cyclic movement during hover.

 

I understand your different approach, because most DCS Pilots are PC Pilots only, so it makes sense to have a preset according to this, and you may adjust the difficulty according to your progress. But you have to have in mind; the Guys from Polyschop or Belsimtek have a goal when starting programing (perfection).

And of cause they give you the choice bevor starting first time in the main Menu, klick on Easy flight model, or Arcade, which is by the way a bade Name for a god thing.

It’s actually a question of self-assessment to do so, or to change for example the Y axis on the collective. And I blame myself, because this feeling still burns in my brain since my first attempt with the Gazelle, a maybe wrong understanding of Pilot honor.

[The Legman]

I have bought it. I am having a really hard time to fly it around. I have the warthog and thrustmaster pedals. I know it's sensitive but I've had to place y saturation in 50% and add curves and I still find myself losing the control so easily and I can handle the Huey rather well.

 

I want to enjoy this airframe but I'm not a pilot and my experience with helicopters is very little. I can't seem to perform easy things as coordinated turns or so without ending losing all the control and the helo spinning around.

 

Probably it's just me, but i am not a brain surgeon having to control the stick moving one millimeter to have a huge output seems excessive. It is realistic? Probably with the Gazelle collective and cyclic that question makes sense but we are using retail controls, I think it should be doable with a regular stick without having to be a real pilot.

 

Probably a lot of issues arise from the lack of experience in helos but I don't see myself spending 1000€ on helicopter controls to be able to play.

 

I love it and want to fly it but it's super frustrating. I will keep practicing though.

[MAD-MM]

For me look most people have realy hard time, because you have setup you controll input for your Joystick real vs PC flight.

Did recommend not set up a curve, because you delay input then when move further the gazelle overreact. (not linear movement)

Fly with my warthog on 30 % Saturration in X,Y axis you can more input on your joystick and the gazelle cyclic does less movement.

It's also the Warthog is not realy good for Helicopter hard center spring small movements hard to archive.

[drPhibes]

It's quite simple trigonometry. With a 50cm stick (a rough estimate of the length in a real chopper), 1° of angular deflection = 8,7mm at the top of the stick. With a 16cm stick, 1° = 2,8mm. Use a stick extension or lower the Y axis saturation to get the "proper" stick sensitivity. In the Gaz, you'll never need full stick deflection, so you don't lose anything by lowering the Y saturation.

[ESAc_matador]

Don't you find difficult to do the taxi at 3-5ft and 10-15kmh?

[drPhibes]

Not really. But it takes a lot of practice to get it right.

[Chelco]

So, any improvements in your handling of the Gaz in the 1.5.4 open beta?

 

I can't wait to try it!

[Poly_Phil]

Probably it's just me, but i am not a brain surgeon having to control the stick moving one millimeter to have a huge output seems excessive. It is realistic? Probably with the Gazelle collective and cyclic that question makes sense but we are using retail controls, I think it should be doable with a regular stick without having to be a real pilot.

 

Probably a lot of issues arise from the lack of experience in helos but I don't see myself spending 1000€ on helicopter controls to be able to play.

 

I have the exact same setup than you have, she flies just fine. Just add a little curves and saturation, whilst we wait for the corrected flight model to arrive. (Oh I just heared it's about to be out today)

It's all about practice. You'll soon find yourself able to do manoeuvres that you won't think possible with any other helicopter available in DCS.

 

 

 

Ok guys. So you know, the flight model has been corrected following the comments of Cpt E. , French Army Light Aviation, 1200hrs on Gazelle.

Besides, I flew her on military full cabin simulator, and all things compared, I can tell that the new model is very convincing compared to what I experienced.

 

I travel to a french Gazelle Regiment next week to get it tested by the same captain, and see if there is anything left to correct. But it should be all right by now.

 

As you know, it is nearly impossible to recreate the same flight model than the real thing, even with the same set of controls. So if he says that it's good enought, I think we'll call it good enough.

[Flagrum]

I could only briefly try it, but so far ... I LOVE IT. At least the turning behaviour is now way more like I would have expected it from the beginning - now she feels (for me) really like a helicopter! THANK YOU POLYCHOP! :o)

[Devrim]

...Besides, I flew her on military full cabin simulator...

Isn't it possible to get all FM data directly from that military simulator? :D :D

[Chelco]

I could only briefly try it, but so far ... I LOVE IT. At least the turning behaviour is now way more like I would have expected it from the beginning - now she feels (for me) really like a helicopter! THANK YOU POLYCHOP! :o)

 

Thanks, man. I can't wait to fly with the update. :thumbup:

[BronzeYardNo11]

Love the new update :D