Jump to content

An Answer to my Flight Model Question


Scarecrow84

Recommended Posts

Gents,

as promised the compressed results of my conversation just a few hours ago with one of our rescue helicopter pilots. We talked about SAS, fenestron and anti-torque at different speed regimes, tail-fin and anti-torque at different speeds, collective movements in cruise and effect on yaw and last but not least behaviour in vortex ring state with a fenestron/large fin-tail equipped helicopter (here EC135).

 

He´s a fairly experienced guy with ~ 4000 hrs of flight, mainly on BO105 PAH (German Army) and EC 135 up to now. He has never flown the Gazelle so his statements refer to "helicopter with SAS and large fin/fenestron = EC 135).

 

Q: Do you use SAS "on" in EC 135 all the times?

A: Yes. There´s no reason to shut it off. Comfort, easier handling in flight (and hover in EC135 as it works independent from forward speed) and therefore safety. If you shut it off for training purposes the helicopter behaves well and is in no way uncontrollable but a little bit more slugish to inputs and influence by wind and turbulence.

 

Q: is SAS in any way a "stick positioning device" (as mentionend in one of the articles I quoted earlier)?

A: No. It´s only a stabilisation augmentation. For stick positioning you have magnetic trim and trim (china hat on stick).

 

Q: What does "magnetic trim"?

A: You move the stick to the desired position to maintain a desired attitude, press it and release the stick - which then stays in position at the time you activated magnetic trim.

 

Q: Do you personally use "magnetic trim"?

A: In earlier times yes, but it feels a little strange to me, so I prefer using trim only (by klicking the china hat on the stick). Only if I have to compensate strong crosswinds winds inflight that need larger movements of the stick I use "magnetic trim" first and do the fine tuning with the china hat.

 

Q: Do you have to use anti torque pedals in straight forward flight and are you able to fly hands-off at cruising speed?

A: No use of anti-torque pedals necessary as the fenestron and especially the large fin tail compensates torque effects totally at cruising speeds. Of course...hands-off every day once trimmed in calm air with no significant turbulence.

 

Q: Would you say it flies "on rails" while trimmed and hands-off?

A: Yes and no. You almost never have conditions in operation without disturbance of the air mass you penetrate, almost every day you have at some locations at least slight turbulence or change of wind direction which of course you have to counteract then. Totally hands-off occurs mostly on late summer evenings or during winter time when stationary high pressure systems are present.

 

Q: Do you use anti-torque pedals in turns enroute?

A: Yes, slight inputs depending on speed and bank necessary - otherwise the helicopter will climb or descend

 

Q: Do collective inputs call for the need of anti-torque pedals while flying with cruise speed?

A: No. All yaw is compensated by either the aerodynamic shape of the large fin tail and the adjustments of the fenestron which compensates (automatically and) additionally the increase/decrease of torque/collective input. There´s no yaw moment by collective I have to adjust while in normal cruise speed. Adjustments are only necessary in low-speed conditions or while landing/take-off/hover.

 

Q: Do you need anti-torque pedals in autorotation?

A: not at a reasonable forward speed, just in the phase you get slower and start to flare. With speed (and even in conditions you lost the fenestron completely) the large tail fin compensates for yaw in autorotation. With BO105 it was mainly the airframe (and not the smaller fins) that compensated the yaw when you lost the tail rotor. There we had to use more input on pedals to keep it straight.

 

Q: Do you believe that any helicopter could manage a vortex ring state just with pulling the collective (given that the helo has plenty of power left?)

A: I never experienced VR state in real life, just in the simulator sessions. But keep in mind that not power makes you exit a VR state...it´s by leaving the condition with a) lowering the collective thus giving the blades a chance to exit the stall and b) forward movement...if not applicable...side movement. VR is a stall of airflow over the blades and increasing the angle of the blades (and it doesent matter how "large" your blades are) by pulling the collective makes the situation worse, sinkrate dramatically increases and you will probably crash

 

---------------------------------------

I´d wish to thank "Andy" for the insight and the time he spent with me discussing the topics above though he probably will not visit this forum :-)

 

I hope that my interview with him will help us a little bit more to "judge" what may be correct and what maybe "wrong" with the FM. I am well aware that I talked to a EC135 pilot and not to a Gazelle guy, both helos are different airframes but they share some fundamental aspects and therefore it may help us in our discussion here on the forums. And I am glad that I can provide you with informations from a "real pilot" with experience on fenestron-equipped, large tail-fin helicopter with SAS system (more advanced than the old one in the Gazelle of course).

 

I am now more confident that great parts of the FM are modelled correct, especially the "hand off" situation in cruise even with collective adjustments. Please keep in mind that no real operator will raise the collective to an extreme limit until it bends :-) ) - which means there´s no information on what happens next then....and I guess PC doesnt have any information on that as well as no one in real life can comment on such a situation.

 

 

I see know a discussion rising on VR state behaviour :-) yes...if we are stationary in VR state with the Gazelle and pull the colletive we should see an increase of sink rate. Before we now judge the FM, let´s make sure that a) we are definitely in VR state and b) that we are not slightly moving out VR but not recognizing it.

I will do some tests tonight and see what I find.

 

Happy flying,

cheers

Willy


Edited by docWilly
  • Like 4

[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

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Gents,

as promised the compressed results of my conversation just a few hours ago with one of our rescue helicopter pilots.

 

... snip ...

 

Thank you for taking the time and effort to talk to your pilot and share this. And, of course, please thank your pilot on our behalf as well!

 

Very interesting! And yes, I agree with you 100%: it really increases one's confidence on how good a job PC did with the flight model! Many of the weird quirks and idiosyncracies of the Gazelle flight come across clearly in this-- if you did not know what he was talking about but just heard him speak in that way, you'd think, "Hmm, just like DCS: Gazelle"!

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I have the same feeling. I know that the internet is a weird place and you can post "alternative facts" (sorry...no offense but I LIKE this wording since the election :-))) ) but I promise you that the interview today is true and not from my imagination or to prove something that may be clearly wrong.

 

I did some VR testing with the gazelle:

 

1. using autohover/autocollective "cheat" to make sure that there´s no forward movement: then disconnect auto collective and you easily get into VR exceeding 150m/min descent. Once you raise the collective your tail goes off. This is clearly a wrong behaviour :-) in 1.5.6. At least: VR state is modelled.

 

2. fly the helo manually with no-wind-condition, hover, then exceed 150m/min sink rate and you get VR state. Once you raise the collective the helicopter yaws to the left and I am not fast enough to keep it straight with pedals , you clearly see the forward speed suddenly higher than 30 km/h = you already exited VR state and the raise of collective does not have "final" negative effects. It´s absolutely hard to create a "stay in VR state situation".

Other effect is that you gain speed by pitching back or forward...result is speed above 30 and you ar safe. So I have a really hard time to test that.

 

Tried several times in 1.5.6 but I always exited VR before it came to a catastrophic situation.

 

In the past I had several VR states on NTTR while in auto-hover, raising the collective drove me into the ground. This leads me to the conclusion that VR is more or less correct modelled here.

[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

Excellent Interview and answers to FAQ's.

 

I watched a video of real Gazelle pilots in training a while back and it was during said video(s) that I noticed Very Little Movement of the Cyclic during all phases of flight.

As such, the PolyChop Gazelle seems to have modeled this reality very well.

 

As others have indicated, I only ever use my Trim Hat to adjust my speed.

I do Not use the Magnetic trim because it allows WAY more movement of the cyclic than one should ever need to use. The overall movement of the cyclic necessary is minimal.

SnowTiger:joystick:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1. using autohover/autocollective "cheat" to make sure that there´s no forward movement: then disconnect auto collective and you easily get into VR exceeding 150m/min descent. Once you raise the collective your tail goes off. This is clearly a wrong behaviour :-) in 1.5.6. At least: VR state is modelled.

 

 

The tail "going off" is usually a result of disabling the autohover mode by reaching max torque. This causes the heading hold to stop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@docWilly: Thank you SO MUCH for the information you cared to collect from a real heli driver! That was remarkable, and indeed although I believe when he answers that he doesn't have to care about countering torque for collective inputs while cruising he's assuming SAS ON, the way the Gazelle + Fenestron are designed will probably allow for minimal need, or probably none at all IRL too.


Edited by jcomm

Flight Simulation is the Virtual Materialization of a Dream...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the interview, Doc, very interesting info regarding VRS, SAS and fenestron behavior.

 

Excellent Interview and answers to FAQ's.

 

I watched a video of real Gazelle pilots in training a while back and it was during said video(s) that I noticed Very Little Movement of the Cyclic during all phases of flight.

As such, the PolyChop Gazelle seems to have modeled this reality very well.

 

As others have indicated, I only ever use my Trim Hat to adjust my speed.

I do Not use the Magnetic trim because it allows WAY more movement of the cyclic than one should ever need to use. The overall movement of the cyclic necessary is minimal.

 

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you SO MUCH for the information you cared to collect from a real heli driver! That was remarkable, and indeed although I believe when he answers that he doesn't have to care about countering torque for collective inputs while cruising he's assuming SAS ON, the way the Gazelle + Fenestron are designed will probably allow for minimal need, or probably none at all IRL too.

 

 

 

He even went a step further: with SAS off in cruise NO anti torque because of the aerodynamic shape of the tail fin. SAS off comes into account especially in slow flight and TO/LA, hover. With airspeed the fin is the largest counteract.

 

They fly 2 different EC´s: one with fiberoptic gyros (if I got him right) that come online very fast after start up and another with "analogue" gyros that will take a while to come to speed. What does that mean: in an emergency takoff (alarm situation) the anlogue gyro (and thus (PR)SAS) is not "ready" and they have to lift off in a SAS-off condition, as soon as the helo gains speed all is compensated by tail fin and fenestron apart the fact that the stick is kind of sluggish in the input but in no way a wobbling helicopter in handling.

 

Sorry guys, i am not a native speaker and I hope I could make clear what I learned today.

 

 

Concerning stick movement Reality vs DCS:

pls consider that your joystick is much shorter than the stick in the real GAZ, so we only make tiny moves while the helicopterpilot makes bigger ones...


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

The tail "going off" is usually a result of disabling the autohover mode by reaching max torque. This causes the heading hold to stop.

 

 

Re-tested to make sure I did not over-torque.....same result.

 

Test: climb to "safe altitude", establish hover, engage auto-hover, bring yourself into VR state and slowly apply collective again up to 75%TQ and your tail goes off without reaching any overtorque situation.

 

Tested at 1.000mtrs ALT, no wind, no turbulence, max indicated TQ 65 to 75% ....TQ limit never reached.

[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

 

It's up to them to prove themselves to us, frankly.

 

 

And, frankly, they already have! Now it is up to us to learn to fly it ...

 

As for the question regarding the stick movement in the flying soldier's video, that seems about right for me. But I am using a 20cm extension, so the scale of movement is more on par with reality. If I were to measure the displacements down to about where the stick head would be without the extension, I doubt I would be able to pick up so exaggerated shifting (more like slight increases in pressure!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, frankly, they already have! Now it is up to us to learn to fly it ...

 

As for the question regarding the stick movement in the flying soldier's video, that seems about right for me. But I am using a 20cm extension, so the scale of movement is more on par with reality. If I were to measure the displacements down to about where the stick head would be without the extension, I doubt I would be able to pick up so exaggerated shifting (more like slight increases in pressure!).

 

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did some VR testing with the gazelle:

 

1. using autohover/autocollective "cheat" to make sure that there´s no forward movement: then disconnect auto collective and you easily get into VR exceeding 150m/min descent. Once you raise the collective your tail goes off. This is clearly a wrong behaviour :-) in 1.5.6. At least: VR state is modelled.

Talking about VRS is beating a dead horse, it's been reported and now we wait, while enjoying the good bits (like multi-crew, etc.) of Polychop's Gazelle.

 

The tail failing after entering VRS while in Auto-hover has been a 'feature' since at least 1.5.4.57288

 

The issue with VRS is not entering it, but that pure collective will recover from it.

2. fly the helo manually with no-wind-condition, hover, then exceed 150m/min sink rate and you get VR state. Once you raise the collective the helicopter yaws to the left and I am not fast enough to keep it straight with pedals , you clearly see the forward speed suddenly higher than 30 km/h = you already exited VR state and the raise of collective does not have "final" negative effects. It´s absolutely hard to create a "stay in VR state situation".

Other effect is that you gain speed by pitching back or forward...result is speed above 30 and you ar safe. So I have a really hard time to test that.

 

Tried several times in 1.5.6 but I always exited VR before it came to a catastrophic situation.

I'm a poor pilot and at times it's taken 6 or 7 attempts in the Huey to enter a VRS (one needs to hold it level and not let it fly it's self out of VRS as the nose drops and/or the body rolls). Only after studying TacView was I sure I was in a VRS and that pure collective had failed to recover from it.

 

I have tried to repeat similar tests in the Gazelle but after 30-40 attempts, gave up as I could always recover if I used enough collective.

 

Hellijumper's video from October shows the Gazelle descending, entering VRS and self-recovering all the way to the ground with no need for pitch or side slip.

 

In the past I had several VR states on NTTR while in auto-hover, raising the collective drove me into the ground. This leads me to the conclusion that VR is more or less correct modelled here.

As noted, VRS while in auto-hover causes the tail to fall off.

i9 9900K @4.7GHz, 64GB DDR4, RTX4070 12GB, 1+2TB NVMe, 6+4TB HD, 4+1TB SSD, Winwing Orion 2 F-15EX Throttle + F-16EX Stick, TPR Pedals, TIR5, Win 10 Pro x64, 1920X1080

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, many thank-yous to @docwilly for the fantastic information given in that interview report!

 

My own comments are related STRICTLY to the animation of the cyclic in DCS: Without ever having seen the RL videos you guys linked and discussed the full throw travel of the Gazelle stick in DCS looked impossibly short.

 

I notice that even with these extremely short throws the stick grip clips through the pilot avatar's legs. I wonder if it's at all possible the animation was kept this way to not make that problem any more disturbing than it already is?

 

This issue with the stick animation is definitely an annoyance in VR, but I'll be honest and say I'd much rather have stupidly short stick travel and clipping with legs than have no pilot avatar!

 

So regardless of my above comments, THANK YOU PolyChop for giving us a pilot avatar even if it is in fact the reason for the super short stick travel.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One last comment from my side on VRS state in Gazelle DCS with no offence to anyone and not beating a dead horse:

 

1. we (hopefully) all agree that VRS occurs in DCS while flying the gazelle. Holbeach´s video clearly demonstrates that VRS is present. The statement at the end of the video "So Yea....no VRS" is wrong as he himself clearly proves the opposite.

 

2. the known parameters programmed into FM by PC are:

 

horizontal speed < 30km/h

vertical speed < -150m/min

pitch between 0 and 6° nose up

absolute roll < 3°

 

3. Holbeach´s video does not show airspeed or groundspeed. Thus we can not judge if it´s below 30km/h at the moment he pulls collective or not.

 

4. the airspeed indicator on front panel has no markings between 0km/h and 60 km/h and it usually comes alive at 15-18 km/h and at 60 km(h it is "valid" (this behaviour comes from the very simple technique of the airspeed indicator via airflow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitot-static_system see: "lag errors")....so no indication does not mean no speed, indication below 60 km/h means not that it is correct. Especially in slight backwards movement the front dash air speed indicator shows wrong values = 0km/h.

The only "valid" speed indicator is on NADIR set to VS DER (in condition with no wind airspeed = groundspeed

 

5. it´s extremely hard in the sim to judge if the helicopter is below 30km/h or not visually , only NADIR helps here. Make a test yourself: no wind, safe altitude, set NADIR to VS DER, monitor NADIR speed vs airspeed indicator vs personal feeling to be in a steady hover condition and try to keep it there. You´ll be surprised.

 

6. it´s of no question that power only NEVER recovers VRS state!!! But we can definitely not state that Holbeach´s video proves you can recover with power only. This conclusion would only be vaild if NONE of the programmed parameters are exceeded while trying to recover.

 

 

Personally I feel that the "area of VRS" is "too small" so you too easily come out of the programmed VRS values which lead to a recovery. The shape of the blades on the military variant are of no factor at the moment you are already in the stall.

 

Take for an example the "pitch between 0 and 6° nose up"-parameter. This means if you pitch slightly below 0 degrees nose down by chance while pulling the collective you already broke one of the parameters and VRS is finished! I am not the one to reccon on my cockpit indicators if I am pitching down below 0 degrees whilst pulling the collective. And I can not tell from the video if the pitch parameter is broken or not.

I believe that there´s definitely room for improvement but I can not second the statement that the Gazelle recovers by power only because i can not prove that I did not brake one of the programmed parameters.

 

But as you said...it´s reported and we´ll have to wait if and when PC is going into that.

 

Meanwhile I enjoy what I have and I am happy that I own a BETA-module without FC3 FM.


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

Not my video.

 

Holbeach´s video clearly demonstrates that VRS is present. The statement at the end of the video "So Yea....no VRS" is wrong as he himself clearly proves the opposite.

 

..

I7 2600K @ 3.8, CoolerMaster 212X, EVGA GTX 1070 8gb. RAM 16gb Corsair, 1kw PSU. 2 x WD SSD. 1 x Samsung M2 NVMe. 3 x HDD. Saitek X-52. Saitek Pro Flight pedals. CH Flight Sim yoke. TrackIR 5. Win 10 Pro. IIyama 1080p. MSAA x 2, SSAA x 1.5. Settings High. Harrier/Spitfire/Beaufighter/The Channel, fanboy..





..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, did not realize it´s ironic :-) Thanks for clarifying.

 

No problems :) Thanks for all the info you have provided, it really shows that the FM is very close to the real gazelle (I did not said it was perfect). I do agree with you regarding the exit of the VRS, it's too easy right now.

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Straight and level flight:

 

 

 

This comment is very usefull.

 

 

The Fm appears a bit artificial because the air is homogeneous and there is no turbulence. If you find the right position in the Huey, you can fly hands free like in the Gazelle.

In the low speed range, I always expect more movement from rising and lowering the collective, but if the FM is like in the real one, my expections are the problem :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Straight and level flight:

 

Hum, his hand is on the stick. I'm sure this proves that the gazelle FM is flawed.

 

Guys, Polychop have hours of in cockpit videos from a French army SA-342M that is not available to the public. A lot of those videos are focusing on stick movements. The FM have been tested by French army SA-342M pilots and improved according to their comments.

 

DocWilly just reported that, the gaz behavior is similar to other helicopters (minus some areas that can be updated)

 

I really don't know what can contradict all this material... :noexpression:

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hum, his hand is on the stick. I'm sure this proves that the gazelle FM is flawed.

 

 

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.

Gazelle3.thumb.jpg.d0bf2b1bcaea37be8896884f09016f2e.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's still very hard to see in the Documentary how much forward pressure, stick movement and at what speed the Gazelle is at. Plus the turbulence and constant stick adjustments.

 

At 264km/h there is lot of aerodynamics at play here at this speed and the Gazelle may not need much stick force and just like to sit in this profile at speed?

 

 

 

d) forward and horizontal flight: the helicopter has always a little pitch down in axis...otherwise it would climb...and this means the stick has to be in a slight (very slight) forward position, trimmed by the pilot. This is realistic otherwise you would climb. I flew for 12 years on Uh1-D and even there (totally different helicopter) we had this attitude - so I am not sure If I got you right? I flew on EC135...and we have this littel pitch down in axis on sreaight forward flight. I see the same behaviour with the GAZ in DCS.

 

I still think this to be a great simulation of the Gazelle and one of the best helicopter simulations in general on the market, there's always room for improvement and I'm sure PC want to polish the FM up to as close as they can get it 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 and you could make it worse before making it better.

 

To me, you could get an FM to say 94%

Then take the same amount of time playing with the FM to get it to 97% "Pushing the edge of Sim envelope"


Edited by David OC

i7-7700K OC @ 5Ghz | ASUS IX Hero MB | ASUS GTX 1080 Ti STRIX | 32GB Corsair 3000Mhz | Corsair H100i V2 Radiator | Samsung 960 EVO M.2 NVMe 500G SSD | Samsung 850 EVO 500G SSD | Corsair HX850i Platinum 850W | Oculus Rift | ASUS PG278Q 27-inch, 2560 x 1440, G-SYNC, 144Hz, 1ms | VKB Gunfighter Pro

Chuck's DCS Tutorial Library

Download PDF Tutorial guides to help get up to speed with aircraft quickly and also great for taking a good look at the aircraft available for DCS before purchasing. Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wish to raise again a point already mentioned that I believe is complicating this.

 

Fact 1: The vast majority of DCS pilots are using cyclics that do not match the real aircraft making it difficult to compare to the youtube video directly. Also there are curve and saturation settings in play.

 

Fact 2: The animation of the cyclic in the DCS Gazelle clearly do not represent the real displacement of the stick, making comparing to the youtube video directly impossible this way as well.

 

My conclusion: All argument about stick position required for forward flight is difficult to discuss intelligently due to these factors. It will be interesting to test Gazelle flight using cyclic with displacement equal to real aircraft (see image) and see if saturation setting tuning is required to get stick travel like in the real video. After this do flight tests to see how handling measures up (and ignoring in game cyclic animations).

 

PS- I suspect the small displacement of the animated stick in game may be that way due to issues with cyclic clipping with avatar legs. I posited this in another thread last night.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Demo of my 6DOF Motion VR Sim:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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