An Answer to my Flight Model Question

[Pocket Sized]

Why would a dev waste his time answering such insulting question ?

 

Even if he proved you that you're wrong, you wouldn't believe him, so why ?

 

Yes, I would believe them, because the answer is completely objective.

 

As I've stated numerous times, I'm talking about the techniques used to create the flight model.

 

Now that that's out of the way, let's put the "constructive" back in "constructive criticism." My advice to polychop: Follow in the footsteps of Leatherneck and be open! Talk to the community about the flight model, how it was created, and how it can be improved. It's much easier for us to give relevant feedback when we know what exactly we're dealing with. Even if it costs some development time initially, good communication = happy community. Even though VEAO's first module release was less than perfect, many people (myself included) still look up to them because they're very transparent about their plans to improve it.

 

Of course, I don't know exactly what's going on behind the scenes, so there might be factors I'm not considering.

[EagleFox]

Nvm, not worth it. They did what they did and future will reflect on that.

Edited February 16, 2017 by EagleFox

[BronzeYardNo11]

good communication = happy community.

 

+1

 

It can't be that hard for the devs to make a weekly sticky on what's going on, right?

 

I think they're going for the Belsimtek approach: "lol what's a forum?"

[TripRodriguez]

+1

 

 

Another +1 here. Communication from devs makes me happier than just about anything else.

 

I feel like this thread might be a lost cause though. =(

[David OC]

Like I have said earlier in the thread...

 

I still think this to be a great simulation of the Gazelle and one of the best helicopter simulations in general on the sim market, there's always room for improvement and I'm sure PC want to polish the FM up to as close as they can when time permits, it's not a 5 minute job playing around with FM's "Pushing the edge of envelope" to get that bit closer to IRL. I'm betting you could make it a lot worse before making it better.

 

We know how advanced DCS is compared to any other sim outside of the Air force and NASA the simulations are here, hence the longggg beta's to fine tune them with user help, because how some fly here, you would never do or test IRL unless totally nuts lol.

 

This is Polychop's first helicopter in the DCS world and they have had a very good go, and just like Leatherneck Mig 21, which some think it still needs work a tweak and I'm sure Leatherneck will get back to it, after my F14 tho lol.

 

To me, you could get an FM to say 93% Then take the same amount of time again to play with the FM to get it to 97% "Pushing the edge of Sim physics envelope"

 

I'm guessing it takes a little time to get fully up to speed in the DCS physics world to launch aircraft day one like the Belsimtek F-5, they've had some practice! and having more developers helps to lift and push this bar which is good for us.

 

Again, it's ultimately a model and cannot be completely correct or account for every physical phenomenon, but we try to go as deep as possible in terms of real-time modeling and as wide as possible in terms of covering physical effects within reasonable limits of time and money. Otherwise we could work on any one model endlessly, which is probably what some of the devs would like to do.:)

 

Read the full post here

 

I know it can be frustrating at times when our OCD kicks in and need to have things perfect NOW, I'm sure Polychop have OCD about their little baby too, but the show must go on, so lets give them a little room to breathe can we.

Edited February 16, 2017 by David OC

[TripRodriguez]

I know this is a little off topic, but PolyChop gave us multi-crew! They deserve lots of love just for that.

 

i hope they continue to work on that functionality as well as the flight model but they get lots of love from for what they've accomplished so far.

[gpelfort]

You, guys are fabulous (could have said ridiculous) !

 

Pretending that Gaz FM is not accurate, based on an other DCS FM modelisation of an other chopper doesn't make any sense.

 

Whatever FM modelisation is based on EFM, AFM, PFM, SFM, too stable, not enough stable, rotor inertia taken into account, it breaks my habits i'm lost, blablabla...... the only good question is : Does DCS SA342 react as the real SA342 ?

 

Answer from a former real SA342 instructor (not me!) flying with me in our DCS virtual squadron (5600 flight hours on helo with 3000 on SA342!) : Yes ! except one thing, a too pronounced tendency of the nose to go down on high bank angles turns, but more than 80% of flight domain is correct..

 

I personaly trust him, judging myself not enough qualified to know better than him. So please stop to speculate and if you think that SA342 flies too well, i suggest you not blaming Polychop developers but Sud Aviation engineers instead !

 

Ps : the others % is the difference between DCS and a professional simulator and the very very last % between a pro sim and real life ! as previously mentionned

[Scarecrow84]

Answer from a former real SA342 instructor (not me!) flying with me in our DCS virtual squadron (5600 flight hours on helo with 3000 on SA342!)

 

So get him to answer one or more of our simple, straightforward questions.

 

Adults don't make arguments that amount to "I know a super hero magic pilot man who said so and so"

[myHelljumper]

So get him to answer one or more of our simple, straightforward questions.

 

He already did :

 

Last time a real Gazelle pilot came to give you his opinion (I'm talking about an ALAT pilot on the specific M version, who worked with Poly), he got answered that he was an ignorant by a wikipedia engineer... Then he told "I'll never do this again".

[Scarecrow84]

Ok, so we are talking about Rotorhead11.

 

Anyone can look up that conversation. It ended with him getting banned for his inability to carry on a discussion without stamping his feet and calling people "simpletons", "dullards" and "schoolchildren" for asking clear, intelligent questions.

 

He also referred to DCS as a "toy" and used the worn out mischaracterization trick of pretending like we expect some perfect flight model.

 

The Huey isn't perfect, but it set a standard of expectations for rotor flight dynamics.

 

The aerospace engineer/pilot who posted the in depth physics questions carries alot more weight than some government technician with a massively inflated ego.

 

Thanks for confirming that he worked for Polychop - that's what I suspected.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Scarecrow84

[Gizzy]

All RL pilots that I have spoken to mention that the FM may need further work in some areas.

 

..and yes I can understand a RL Gazelle pilot mentioning 80% of the 'domain' is correct.

 

..and yes the Gazelle is certainly fun to fly for the most part..

 

..and yes I understand asking for clarification from Polychop.

 

but bearing in mind todays post from BigNewy :

 

Hi all,

 

I have been contacted by the CEO of Polychop and he asked me to publish the following statement:

 

Quote:

Hi all,

 

Due to a restructuring of Polychop, we are very busy at the moment. Until internal legal issues are sorted out, we are unable to post any status. Nevertheless I can assure you all that the team is working hard on all open issues.

 

__________________

Maybe it's best to wait until we get something definitive from Polychop ...

[Pocket Sized]

Due to a restructuring of Polychop, we are very busy at the moment. Until internal legal issues are sorted out, we are unable to post any status. Nevertheless I can assure you all that the team is working hard on all open issues.

 

Even though it's a message telling us that they need to stay quiet for the moment, it's still good communication. Props to you Polychop!

[myHelljumper]

Ok, so we are talking about Rotorhead11.

 

Anyone can look up that conversation. It ended with him getting banned for his inability to carry on a discussion without stamping his feet and calling people "simpletons", "dullards" and "schoolchildren" for asking clear, intelligent questions.

 

He also referred to DCS as a "toy" and used the worn out mischaracterization trick of pretending like we expect some perfect flight model.

 

The Huey isn't perfect, but it set a standard of expectations for rotor flight dynamics.

 

The aerospace engineer/pilot who posted the in depth physics questions carries alot more weight than some government technician with a massively inflated ego.

 

Thanks for confirming that he worked for Polychop - that's what I suspected.

 

No, we are no talking about him, he was not an ALAT SA342M pilot, he said he was a civil SA341 pilot. You are taking shortcuts here, Rotorhead11 never worked for polychop.

 

Edit : Nothing personal, just trying to rectify some false information with all due respect.

Edited February 16, 2017 by myHelljumper

[BIGNEWY]

Guys

 

please do not make this a personal discussion otherwise it will get closed.

 

Give polychop some time, I am sure they will address everyone's concern's in the future.

[Scarecrow84]

No, we are no talking about him, he was not an ALAT SA342M pilot, he said he was a civil SA341 pilot. You are taking shortcuts here, Rotorhead11 never worked for polychop.

 

Edit : Nothing personal, just trying to rectify some false information with all due respect.

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

Was this the same guy gpelfort was referring to above?

 

I agree, we should just drop it until further info comes out.

 

I think everyone has made their points.

 

For the record, I can in a way understand why some people find it so distasteful to criticize Polychop, considering the number of us customers versus the man hours involved.

 

It's not like anybody's laughing all the way to the bank here, from what I can tell...

 

But I do hope for some major improvements, and especially hope for a top notch FM for the BO105.

[Pocket Sized]

Does anyone know of resources where I could get some detailed descriptions of the real Gazelle's stabilization system?

 

I have some hunches based on knowledge of stab aug systems in other aircraft, but I don't want to say too much until I get a bit more info on what it actually does. This could give some very useful insights on how the helicopter should fly with and without SAS.

 

Edit: Ideally something like this: http://www.f15sim.com/operation/f15_flight_control_system.htm

(Explains how, and WHY, the F-15 flight control system works the way it does)

Edited February 16, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[myHelljumper]

I don't think those infos will be easy to find. The SA342M stabilisation system is unique to this model (as the weight, aero and blades are different), and this model is unique to the ALAT. France is very secretive regarding it's military systems.

 

I hope you find something however.

[Pocket Sized]

I'm just looking for the operating principles, not necessarily hard data.

 

I found some useful info in the SA 341 manual, which at least confirms some of my speculation involving helicopter stabilization systems in general. https://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/france/aerospatiale/as341gazelle/flight-manual-gazelle-sa-341g.html (page 124)

 

...however that particular site won't play nice with any of the browsers on my phone. Gonna have to wait until i get home before I can actually see the entire page (facepalm)

 

I'm considering making my findings/suggestions into a separate thread, as there's probably going to be a lot of stuff to cover. My goal isn't to say "this is why your FM is wrong" my goal is to say "this is how your FM can be improved."

Edited February 16, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[dimitriov]

Hi,

 

The Sa-342M stabilizer system is not the same than on the former 341 version. There are two possible sources to know with accuracy what it does : classified documents, and mechanicians ( Pilots don't really care about it, they probably have a course dealing with it during their qualification, but hem, I'm not sure they read it again everyday :megalol: )

 

All this was by the way a big issue met during the manual redaction, as long as it wasn't clear about what could be, and couldn't be written. Like Helljumper said, France is very, very, very secret. Even on such "common" system.

 

From pilots I spoke with, they usually told me that they prefered the former 341 version because the new SAS system was very invasive, and they often ended in fighting with it. Though I don't know if they were a bit exagerating or not. I'm not sure that it may be really pertinent to argue using the 341 system, devs won't take it seriously at all.

 

Nicolas

Edited February 16, 2017 by dimitriov

[Pocket Sized]

Damn. I thought the systems were similar in their operation. The Gazelle in game has a self righting behavior that I assumed wasn't accurate, but I guess it is. (self righting is definitely an "intrusive" function)

 

However I still think there are some aspects in which the current FM/SAS could be improved, mainly involving cyclic inputs.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[myHelljumper]

Damn. I thought the systems were similar enough for the Sim. The Gazelle in game has a self righting behavior that I assumed wasn't accurate, but I guess it is. (self righting is definitely an "intrusive" function)

 

However I still think there are some aspects in which the current FM/SAS could be improved, mainly involving cyclic inputs.

 

As said by BIGNEWY devs are working on it, we just don't here from them for the moment ;).

[dimitriov]

No but go on, do your search, I think that pilots may be more interested in research of this kind than on Wiki/YT references honestly.

 

I'd like to add something which is IMO very important.

 

When I talk about the limits in DCS, I don't only talk about the FM limits. I talk about the environment limits.

 

I don't think that any RL pilot will tell you "I fly in DCS the same way than IRL", even if the FM is great. Because environment is not modelized. No real turbulence (sorry I'm french I don't know the english vocabulary), well, no weather system. It's nearly only cosmetic and eye candy.

 

BUT. The first thing you learn, whatever the aircraft you're learning IRL, whatever the sector (military, civilian), is about the behavior of an aircraft under this, or this condition. The drama (it's one), is that you then think that you understand how to fly an helicopter. But you learn on DCS how to fly a helicopter in the space vacuum, not in an atmosphere. I don't think (no bashing, seriously), that any simmer, even the smartest one, would be able to pilot an helicopter IRL, because you don't have the chance (it's one) to train in real life conditions.

 

Whatever would be the FM quality, SFM, EFM, AFM, PFM, you will never learn anything more than "if I use the collective it climbs or it goes down".

 

And this is sad. Another part is about the basis of flight. It's not even taught in the manuals, any of them. In helicopter you use "reference banks" (I don't know how to say in english but I think you understood). And you use this far more than your instruments. In DCS, you learn what does switch 1, switch 2 etc etc, IRL, even if of course, instruments are vital, to learn to pilot an helicopter, you learn these reference banks, the rest, is secondary. In DCS it's the exact opposite.

 

To sum it up, when I told you that you were piloting a computer, it wasn't to tell you "guys you're pussies", but simply because you focus on parts which are important, but far less than others you simply forget (because, well, you never piloted, and no many people are lucky enough for this unfortunately).

 

So IMO, focus first on asking ED to implement a real, complex weather system, able to take into account "climbing turbulence" (again don't know your vocabulary, english pilots will translate if they want), the air behavior in mountain areas (currently 40% of the modeled Caucasus map guys...), because it is really far more important to learn how to pilot a helicopter than to know if the Gazelle, or any other heli, turns a bit too much or stuff like this.

 

Nicolas

Edited February 16, 2017 by dimitriov

[Pocket Sized]

You make some very good points. I think the biggest difficulties when going from Sim to RL are:

 

1. Different controls. The stick is totally different from the plastic, spring loaded one most of us are so used to. The forces and movement ranges are usually much larger in a real aircraft. I've heard that helicopter cyclics tend to be very light, which could cause issues with overcontrolling.

 

2. Seat of the pants. This is what really screwed with me. Years ago I got a ride in a Super Decathlon and the pilot let me fly. It was severely disorienting actually feeling my control inputs, so I barely even touched the stick. (Fast forward to today and I'll recover from a spin with a smile on my face)

 

On the topic of the FM: I'm kinda at a loss. My guess is, for the moment, it'd be best to wait until the devs are in a position to talk about their plans for the FM. The SAS is the key element in all of this, and if it's classified, there's not much I can do to help. (That is, if there was anything my input could assist with anyway) I also realized I was making some false assumptions involving the helicopter's flying qualities without SAS, which has thrown a bit of uncertainty into the mix.

Edited February 16, 2017 by Pocket Sized

[gpelfort]

Was this the same guy gpelfort was referring to above?

No, the guy I was refering to doesn't post here...

[Charly_Owl]

The Sa-342M stabilizer system is not the same than on the former 341 version. There are two possible sources to know with accuracy what it does : classified documents, and mechanicians ( Pilots don't really care about it, they probably have a course dealing with it during their qualification, but hem, I'm not sure they read it again everyday :megalol: )

 

All this was by the way a big issue met during the manual redaction, as long as it wasn't clear about what could be, and couldn't be written. Like Helljumper said, France is very, very, very secret. Even on such "common" system.

 

From pilots I spoke with, they usually told me that they prefered the former 341 version because the new SAS system was very invasive, and they often ended in fighting with it. Though I don't know if they were a bit exaggerating or not. I'm not sure that it may be really pertinent to argue using the 341 system, devs won't take it seriously at all.

 

When I wrote my guides for the Mirage and Gazelle, the information that I could find was super restricted and kind of vague... there is no way you'll find a NATOPS manual for any french aircraft/helicopter. You don't realize how secretive the french government is about its classified/restricted data until you've tried finding a specific information about a specific system. There is a huge difference between what's available for US-built aircraft on the internet and what's available for french-built aircraft.

 

Also, from all the hours I have on the DCS Gazelle, the comment about the SAS is completely true. I heard lots of people complain about the "scripted" behaviour of the flight model, but when I ask them "well, try to perform a turn at this specific bank angle and maintain it", then they realize that the SAS is actually "fighting" them. The system is invasive and I immediately see a difference when flying the Huey, which doesn't have this system: you feel you have so much more control over your helicopter. There is often confusion between a "script" a la SFM and an actual system doing its job. That's true not only in the Gazelle, but in other helicopters as well.

 

I don't think that any RL pilot will tell you "I fly in DCS the same way than IRL", even if the FM is great. Because environment is not modelized. No real turbulence (sorry I'm french I don't know the english vocabulary), well, no weather system. It's nearly only cosmetic and eye candy.

 

[...]

 

So IMO, focus first on asking ED to implement a real, complex weather system, able to take into account "climbing turbulence" (again don't know your vocabulary, english pilots will translate if they want), the air behavior in mountain areas (currently 40% of the modeled Caucasus map guys...), because it is really far more important to learn how to pilot a helicopter than to know if the Gazelle, or any other heli, turns a bit too much or stuff like this.

 

I know what you mean about mountain flights. I haven't seen it modelled in DCS, and I had the chance to talk to a couple of helicopter pilots who told me stories about their flights in mountaineous areas. The wind drafts suck you down really easily if you fly too close to the mountainsides. There are various phenomenon that pilots are trained for, and it is a very different way of flying.

 

While it can be argued that DCS isn't really aimed at training real life pilots, I think it's unfair to say that it has zero training value.

 

You CAN do the procedures by-the-book if you want to train this way. Lots of folks in the 229th Virtual Air Cav train as per the -10 manual of the Huey, meaning that they plan their payload, plan their torque values for different flight phases and states. These guys have pilots from all walks of life; Black Hawk, Huey, 412 pilots, you name it. DCS gives you the possibility to go as deep as you want (within the limits of this sim, limits in terms of simulation scope), assuming that you have the material to learn how to fly it "the way they do in real life".