Jump to content

An Answer to my Flight Model Question


Scarecrow84

Recommended Posts

@docwilly I have one more question for you. Can you give me any idea how much "spring" tension there is on a real helicopter cyclic? Does it vary a whole lot from one heli to another?

 

I know it may be difficult to answer since it's largely subjective, but perhaps something like "easily overcome with one finger, somewhat difficult with one finger, etc. would work? Just a really rough idea will do.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

 

So your documentary where you don't know speed, altitude, wind, trim, or even helicopter model is better that said collection ? And the real pilots are wrong because of this documentary ? Damn....

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alright I tried real quick to estimate cyclic travel in DCS (using VR I've gotten excellent estimates of dimensions the last few days) but it was very difficult without doing some careful setup and spending a lot more time.

 

That said, I will say that my feeling is that in game longitudinal displacement is somewhere in the ballpark of 7 inches vs. 11.46 inches RL and maybe6 inches lateral vs 9.45 inches IRL.

 

Please note, these are not much better than wild guesses. If anyone wants to argue the point I will have to take an hour and set up to get an accurate measurement. I should be able to get it figured out quite accurately but it will take some work.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@docwilly I have one more question for you. Can you give me any idea how much "spring" tension there is on a real helicopter cyclic? Does it vary a whole lot from one heli to another?

 

I know it may be difficult to answer since it's largely subjective, but perhaps something like "easily overcome with one finger, somewhat difficult with one finger, etc. would work? Just a really rough idea will do.

 

Hydraulics on or off? :-) Honestly....everybody will tell you different findings about that - as you said.

Personal "feeeling": EC135 is absolutely "easy", UH1-D is a ittle more stiff, with hydraulics off you even need two strong arms to move it around to the extreme extend.

 

watch 19.05 for UH1

 

and the next one for EC135 (and the tiny movements on the stick :-) )

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8DVLjXv1vYhttp://

 

 

 


Edited by docWilly

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]my rig specs: i7-4790K CPU 4.50GHz, 32GB RAM, 64bit WIN10, NVidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti, SSD+

 

A10C, UH-1H, M2C, F5E, Gazelle, KA 50, F18C, DCS 2.5x OB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Straight and level flight:

 

 

Come on man :-) your pic shows the instructor on the left seat grabbing the stick. What does that prove other than he is taking control?

Reason unknown as I don´t have the time to research which episode this is and at what point and for what reason he takes it.

 

I know that you are not satisfied with what we have with the Gazelle but I´d appreciate a more constructive discussion.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]my rig specs: i7-4790K CPU 4.50GHz, 32GB RAM, 64bit WIN10, NVidia GeForce GTX 980 Ti, SSD+

 

A10C, UH-1H, M2C, F5E, Gazelle, KA 50, F18C, DCS 2.5x OB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come on man :-) your pic shows the instructor on the left seat grabbing the stick. What does that prove other than he is taking control?

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Are you sure that the gazelle in the documentary is a SA-342M with the viviane sight ? Because it handle differently from other gazelles as the blades and weight are different. The SAS is also different.

 

As an example our gazelle can't go even near to other models top speed, that might be a factor for the stick travel.

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure that the gazelle in the documentary is a SA-342M with the viviane sight ? Because it handle differently from other gazelles as the blades and weight are different. The SAS is also different.

 

As an example our gazelle can't go even near to other models top speed, that might be a factor for the stick travel.

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

So, if I am reading you right, you are dissatisified with the amount of travel on your stick vs. the amount of travel in RL?

 

And I take it that you have a short (no extension) joystick?

 

And you think that that the sim should be designed to cater such that travel on your particular control setup corresponds to what is in RL?

 

(1) If so, then, at worst, it is a control mapping issue and not a flight model issue.

 

(2) "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)." -- no, buddy, no we can't. I don't. So many joysticks in the world, going from piddly $35 affairs to $1000 cyclics. And even with each price category there are so many variations in throw and behavior. And you want Polychop/ED or someone else to cater to YOUR particular system?? LOL. What entitlement! And you are not even a millennial!

 

Here is what I assumed: given a choice of picking something to model on, model on something closer to RL then to something as adept as space invaders or warthunder as anything else. That is an objective, stable, and good criteria to adopt, and that is the exact criteria adopted by, e.g., X-Plane and PDX.

 

And to put things in perspective, $300 is not ultra-high end exotic. I have a TMWH with 20cm extension, which comes up to be more than $400 total, and I don't consider it exotic or high-fidelity, and I fully expect that my movements will not match movements in RL because of that. If I were to go out and get a Komodo sims cyclic or some reproduction of RC-135, then I would certainly expect its movements to come closer to RL ... maybe not exact, but closer. But either way, I really would not rail against the universe because Polychop/ED failed to fine-tune their control responses by default to match my particular input system of the day..

 

(3) Honestly, this is really, really, really, really, really, really, really, small stuff. There are so many more important things to worry/complain about!

 

At the end of the day, your outrage/angst is due to some incorrect/misguided assumptions that Polychop should have designed their game to fit YOUR input system (rather than mine or anyone elses). I saw the videos you posted and thought, "looks about right". But you know what, I was surprised that it was, because I honestly was not expecting that to be part of the design criteria. I see the interface mapping as something part of this world, and not part of the simulation, just like adjusting your car seat height and rear-view mirror are important to driving, but not part of driving itself ... and I certainly would not assume that car manufacturers build cars to with seats and mirrors pre-adjusted by default to cater to my height and posture!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Then please do some research as Polychop have stated MANY times that our DCS SA-342M does handle very differently that civil or military SA-341. Even more with the Viviane sight that weight so much that is needed other SAS laws and reduced the top speed significantly.

 

I think you do not have all the card to call the FM unrealistic and neither do I so lets give some credit to the devs that, I'm sure, have a lot more cards than us.

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.


Edited by BIGNEWY
1.2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then please do some research as Polychop have stated MANY times that our DCS SA-342M does handle very differently that civil or military SA-341. Even more with the Viviane sight that weight so much that is needed other SAS laws and reduced the top speed significantly.

 

I think you do not have all the card to call the FM unrealistic and neither do I so lets give some credit to the devs that, I'm sure, have a lot more cards than us.

 

And more to the point, how control movements in the physical world scale to control inputs in the virtual world is NOT part of the flight model! It's part of the interface. Otherwise, by simply mucking about with the curve we could change the flight model. And every one with a different stick would be flying a different flight model!

 

Scarecrow84 is dealing with an input mapping issue, not a flight model issue.

 

And Scarecrow84 is hoping that his/her short desktop joystick is going to give full one-to-one mapping with the control throw in both the simulation and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bearfoot:

 

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.

 

And I pointed out that there really is no typical systems on the market, and no, it is not reasonable that this type of setup is what the sim is made for. DCS, X-Plane, etc. all don't. The passive voice here ("it is reasonable to assume") occludes the fact that YOU, and you alone, are assuming this without any justification, and then using this self-entitled assumption as justification for your unhappiness.

 

EDITED: to keep things civil (thanks for the reminder, BN).


Edited by Bearfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team
I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bearfoot.

 

I will try to be more sensitive for you in the future.

 

Just try sticking to the forum rules

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/rules.php#en

 

if you can not, do not post

 

Topic is the flight model, if you have something constructive to add please post.

 

Off topic posts will be removed


Edited by BIGNEWY

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice to see the discussion goes on, very nice to see fenestron tail feedback from RL pilots.

 

Oh come on Bignewy... we see more passion and violence in the WWII forums.

 

Perhaps I can suggest a more covert method of attack from our chopper fan base when discussing our beloved choppers.

HP G2 Reverb, Windows 10 VR settings: IPD is 64.5mm, High image quality, G2 reset to 60Hz refresh rate as standard. OpenXR user, Open XR tool kit disabled. Open XR was a massive upgrade for me.

DCS: Pixel Density 1.0, Forced IPD at 55 (perceived world size), 0 X MSAA, 0 X SSAA. My real IPD is 64.5mm. Prescription VROptition lenses installed. VR Driver system: I9-9900KS 5Ghz CPU. XI Hero motherboard and RTX 3090 graphics card, 64 gigs Ram, No OC at the mo. MT user  (2 - 5 fps gain). DCS run at 60Hz.

Vaicom user. Thrustmaster warthog user. MFG pedals with damper upgrade.... and what an upgrade! Total controls Apache MPDs set to virtual Reality height with brail enhancements to ensure 100% button activation in VR.. Simshaker Jet Pro vibration seat.. Uses data from DCS not sound.... you know when you are dropping into VRS with this bad boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

Nothing wrong with passion, but be passionate about the topic without breaking the forum rules.

smallCATPILOT.PNG.04bbece1b27ff1b2c193b174ec410fc0.PNG

Forum rules - DCS Crashing? Try this first - Cleanup and Repair - Discord BIGNEWY#8703 - Youtube - Patch Status

Windows 11, NVIDIA MSI RTX 3090, Intel® i9-10900K 3.70GHz, 5.30GHz Turbo, Corsair Hydro Series H150i Pro, 64GB DDR @3200, ASUS ROG Strix Z490-F Gaming, HP Reverb G2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any real helicopter pilots here, and also those who have access to real heli pilots to ask questions: We are having a similar conversation over in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182256&page=6 and I'm seeking additional input from people who can set us straight on realistic behaviors of helicopter controls.

 

Thanks,

 

Trip

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any real helicopter pilots here, and also those who have access to real heli pilots to ask questions: We are having a similar conversation over in this thread https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=182256&page=6 and I'm seeking additional input from people who can set us straight on realistic behaviors of helicopter controls.

 

Thanks,

 

Trip

 

...here

GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition - AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - 64Gb RAM - Win11 - HP Reverb G1 - Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS (40cm extension) - VKB Sim T-Rudder MKIV Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclic amplitude was made with a real pilot, he used a Warthog, but I don't remember if there was an extension. I think that yes, but I may not remember well if this is this pilot or another.

 

Anyway, instead of yelling at each other with sometimes someone who tries to be constructive (not sometimes, rarely in fact), perhaps should you understand that you are piloting a computer, not an helicopter.

 

This will never be perfect.

 

This will never, ever even be near from perfect.

 

You are wrong considering that any DCS module is near from perfect.

 

I use to see a lot of people talking about the Uh-1 FM for example... Guys, you never piloted a Huey, really !

 

Really !

 

A Huey pilot would wonder if he is drunk while piloting the DCS module...

 

And that's the same for the Gazelle. And for Mi-8. And (I suppose) for Kamov-50.

 

DCS FM are quite accurate, but they don't simulate many, many very important things for helicopters, simply because they can't, too hard to code, too expensive, too long, and by the way too much for a public use. Only real pilots will notice issues (real issues, not those imagined by people who use YT videos to learn how a helicopter behaves...).

 

DCS is at a high level of fidelity, which means that around 5% of the helicopter behavior is calculated, maximum, because your computer would never handle a complete professional sim.

 

So cease asking for perfection, you will never get it. You will only get people who will take benefit of you believing it's possible, to sell you modules.

 

But DCS is a game. DCS is made for "old children dreaming to fly in front of their screen with an IR antenna on the face". You are not pilots. You are not mechanicians on the aircraft ! You are not even students in an helicopter school, or in the Air force right ? Did you ever pilot an helicopter ? Well, No ? There is no shame guys, but you have to understand that at 40 $ a module, for a public use, they are not going to produce you a perfect copy of the original ! Because a pro sim costs a bit more you know...

 

DCS is not made for a professional use, and doesn't, for any of its modules, fill the requirements. And even professional simulators (the kind of sim which fills an entire building for calculation) are not perfect.

 

So cease imagining that you can get a real helo. You will never. That's sad, but if you want to pilot an helicopter, buy a license. When you'll see the price, you'll finally realize that even if DCS products are far from being perfect, it's enough for you.

 

<3

 

Nicolas


Edited by dimitriov
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cyclic amplitude was made with a real pilot, he used a Warthog, but I don't remember if there was an extension. I think that yes, but I may not remember well if this is this pilot or another.

 

Anyway, instead of yelling at each other with sometimes someone who tries to be constructive (not sometimes, rarely in fact), perhaps should you understand that you are piloting a computer, not an helicopter.

 

This will never be perfect.

 

This will never, ever even be near from perfect.

 

You are wrong considering that any DCS module is near from perfect.

 

I use to see a lot of people talking about the Uh-1 FM for example... Guys, you never piloted a Huey, really !

 

Really !

 

A Huey pilot would wonder if he is drunk while piloting the DCS module...

 

And that's the same for the Gazelle. And for Mi-8. And (I suppose) for Kamov-50.

 

DCS FM are quite accurate, but they don't simulate many, many very important things for helicopters, simply because they can't, too hard to code, too expensive, too long, and by the way too much for a public use. Only real pilots will notice issues (real issues, not those imagined by people who use YT videos to learn how a helicopter behaves...).

 

DCS is at a high level of fidelity, which means that around 5% of the helicopter behavior is calculated, maximum, because your computer would never handle a complete professional sim.

 

So cease asking for perfection, you will never get it. You will only get people who will take benefit of you believing it's possible, to sell you modules.

 

But DCS is a game. DCS is made for "old children dreaming to fly in front of their screen with an IR antenna on the face". You are not pilots. You are not mechanicians on the aircraft ! You are not even students in an helicopter school, or in the Air force right ? Did you ever pilot an helicopter ? Well, No ? There is no shame guys, but you have to understand that at 40 $ a module, for a public use, they are not going to produce you a perfect copy of the original ! Because a pro sim costs a bit more you know...

 

DCS is not made for a professional use, and doesn't, for any of its modules, fill the requirements. And even professional simulators (the kind of sim which fills an entire building for calculation) are not perfect.

 

So cease imagining that you can get a real helo. You will never. That's sad, but if you want to pilot an helicopter, buy a license. When you'll see the price, you'll finally realize that even if DCS products are far from being perfect, it's enough for you.

 

<3

 

Nicolas

 

+1 for common sense

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...