Flight Model

[stuart666]

What do people think of the new update to the flight model? I really liked the OLD flight model, where it was actually fairly hard to turn. This seems borne out by video footage, and written accounts of the wings actually making it harder to turn at high speed. With this model, if anything it seems to handle much more like an Apache. I almost pulled off a barrel roll with it.

 

Ive also not had that pitch up recently, the one that everyone complains about but also seems supported by some accounts in Afganistan.

 

Any thoughts?

[kotor633]

Hi,

how do you know that it behaves like Apache? Are you an apache pilot? And have you ever already flown the Mi-24 in RL? Based on what facts do you make this statement?

Regardless, the module has only been out for a few weeks. If the FM does not yet fit ... one can assume that the ED will make appropriate adjustments sooner or later. Since you ask for the opinions of others: I am so far completely satisfied with the one that has been delivered so far, the module is already a lot more fun for me than some other modules at this stage of its development. Whereby I find that, in addition to the FM, the corresponding hardware also plays an essential role. I previously had the Thrustmaster TFRP pedals and no extensions on my Warthog stick. Now I have a 7.5cm extension and MFG Crosswind pedals, where you can easily relax the spring. The Mi-24, Ka-50, UH-1 and Mi-8 now fly MUCH more precisely.

 

[Dangerzone]

Just wondering what 'new' update to the FM is referring to? The Hind as I understand it is early release and has just been released. Has there been an update to the FM in the last couple of days already that I'm unaware of?

[admiki]

Try to dive almost to RBS with full collective and then pull back. Don't try to wiggle it into horizontal flight, but pull back about half the way. It will pitch up

[stuart666]

3 hours ago, kotor633 said:

Hi,

how do you know that it behaves like Apache? Are you an apache pilot? And have you ever already flown the Mi-24 in RL? Based on what facts do you make this statement?

Regardless, the module has only been out for a few weeks. If the FM does not yet fit ... one can assume that the ED will make appropriate adjustments sooner or later. Since you ask for the opinions of others: I am so far completely satisfied with the one that has been delivered so far, the module is already a lot more fun for me than some other modules at this stage of its development. Whereby I find that, in addition to the FM, the corresponding hardware also plays an essential role. I previously had the Thrustmaster TFRP pedals and no extensions on my Warthog stick. Now I have a 7.5cm extension and MFG Crosswind pedals, where you can easily relax the spring. The Mi-24, Ka-50, UH-1 and Mi-8 now fly MUCH more precisely.

 

Ok, first things first, I didnt come here for an argument or confrontations. I have tanknet for that, and im perfectly happy with that, thank you so very much.

 

Secondly, I did say I had been reading up (the Yefim Gordon book) on how the aircraft handled. And yes, much of it is about how they handled in Afghanistan, but its also pretty clearly they featured things like the pitch up, which was an occupational hazzard, and there are pilots on the internet you can search that say that its ruddy hard to turn.

 

As far as turning, I can entirely believe its like any other helo at low speeds. But at high speeds, it now rolls like a fighter.  Im certain I could do a barrel roll with it If I had the altitude. That is somewhat contrary to what you can read aobut it, not to mention video footage of it in Syria or Afghanistan, or any video footage of it flying in cold war exercises.

 

And no, im not an Apache pilot, but ive seen plenty of footage of them at airshows to have a reasonable idea how they can handle. Its been a long standing believe Apache is  rather more manoeuvrable than Hind. If this model is accurate, I have to ask why.

 

There is a distinct change in how it handles over the past couple of patches. Im basically asking, how do we know that this is 'right', when clearly it was release with different handling? I dont believe this is a particularly unreasonable point to  ask. If feels like a nearly different aircraft now.

 

The irony is, they seemingly changed everything but the ocillation about 120km that makes it so hard to put the gunsight on target.  Which considering the aircraft is reputedly more accurate at high speeds, again seems contary to written accounts.

 

Look, Im not trying to kick dust in the air, or suggest im absolutely right. Im just concerned this now seems less like the Hind we have read about than it was at release. Thats all.

[kotor633]

Come down, I didn't come here for an argument or a confrontation either!

Has there been a change in the FM at all? At least I can't read anything about it in the changelog ... 

Secondly, I did say I had been reading up (the Yefim Gordon book) on how the aircraft handled. -> I can't read that anywhere in your first post.

(I read Michael Normann's book Mi-24. Originally published by Motorbuch Verlag.)

The irony is, they seemingly changed everything but the ocillation about 120km that makes it so hard to put the gunsight on target.  Which considering the aircraft is reputedly more accurate at high speeds, again seems contary to written accounts. -> Hm ... I can't agree with that for myself. I cannot determine this behavior.

 

By the way: I don't know if it is possible in real life, but with the Mi-8 with the appropriate height & speed I can also get a barrel roll in DCS ... 

[rogorogo]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb stuart666:

Ok, first things first, I didnt come here for an argument or confrontations. I have tanknet for that, and im perfectly happy with that, thank you so very much.

 

Secondly, I did say I had been reading up (the Yefim Gordon book) on how the aircraft handled. And yes, much of it is about how they handled in Afghanistan, but its also pretty clearly they featured things like the pitch up, which was an occupational hazzard, and there are pilots on the internet you can search that say that its ruddy hard to turn.

 

As far as turning, I can entirely believe its like any other helo at low speeds. But at high speeds, it now rolls like a fighter.  Im certain I could do a barrel roll with it If I had the altitude. That is somewhat contrary to what you can read aobut it, not to mention video footage of it in Syria or Afghanistan, or any video footage of it flying in cold war exercises.

 

And no, im not an Apache pilot, but ive seen plenty of footage of them at airshows to have a reasonable idea how they can handle. Its been a long standing believe Apache is  rather more manoeuvrable than Hind. If this model is accurate, I have to ask why.

 

There is a distinct change in how it handles over the past couple of patches. Im basically asking, how do we know that this is 'right', when clearly it was release with different handling? I dont believe this is a particularly unreasonable point to  ask. If feels like a nearly different aircraft now.

 

The irony is, they seemingly changed everything but the ocillation about 120km that makes it so hard to put the gunsight on target.  Which considering the aircraft is reputedly more accurate at high speeds, again seems contary to written accounts.

 

Look, Im not trying to kick dust in the air, or suggest im absolutely right. Im just concerned this now seems less like the Hind we have read about than it was at release. Thats all.

 

you are very very right.. and it also may be a bug. We should hope it is a bug, because this is not accurate, not fidelic, not anything at all - especially when compared to before.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2021 by rogorogo

[leapingrodent]

4 hours ago, stuart666 said:

As far as turning, I can entirely believe its like any other helo at low speeds. But at high speeds, it now rolls like a fighter.  Im certain I could do a barrel roll with it If I had the altitude. That is somewhat contrary to what you can read aobut it, not to mention video footage of it in Syria or Afghanistan, or any video footage of it flying in cold war exercises.

 

From Wikipedia: Early in the war, Marat Tischenko, head of the Mil design bureau visited Afghanistan to see what the troops thought of his helicopters, and gunship crews put on several displays for him. They even demonstrated maneuvers, such as barrel rolls, which design engineers considered impossible. An astounded Tischenko commented, "I thought I knew what my helicopters could do, now I'm not so sure!"

Edited July 26, 2021 by leapingrodent

[zerO_crash]

On 7/26/2021 at 3:11 PM, stuart666 said:

Ok, first things first, I didnt come here for an argument or confrontations. I have tanknet for that, and im perfectly happy with that, thank you so very much.

 

Secondly, I did say I had been reading up (the Yefim Gordon book) on how the aircraft handled. And yes, much of it is about how they handled in Afghanistan, but its also pretty clearly they featured things like the pitch up, which was an occupational hazzard, and there are pilots on the internet you can search that say that its ruddy hard to turn.

 

As far as turning, I can entirely believe its like any other helo at low speeds. But at high speeds, it now rolls like a fighter.  Im certain I could do a barrel roll with it If I had the altitude. That is somewhat contrary to what you can read aobut it, not to mention video footage of it in Syria or Afghanistan, or any video footage of it flying in cold war exercises.

 

And no, im not an Apache pilot, but ive seen plenty of footage of them at airshows to have a reasonable idea how they can handle. Its been a long standing believe Apache is  rather more manoeuvrable than Hind. If this model is accurate, I have to ask why.

 

There is a distinct change in how it handles over the past couple of patches. Im basically asking, how do we know that this is 'right', when clearly it was release with different handling? I dont believe this is a particularly unreasonable point to  ask. If feels like a nearly different aircraft now.

 

The irony is, they seemingly changed everything but the ocillation about 120km that makes it so hard to put the gunsight on target.  Which considering the aircraft is reputedly more accurate at high speeds, again seems contary to written accounts.

 

Look, Im not trying to kick dust in the air, or suggest im absolutely right. Im just concerned this now seems less like the Hind we have read about than it was at release. Thats all.

Throw away the conception that Yefim Gordon’s books are factually correct. I thought too that they were back in the day, but when you start comparing facts, specs and pilot memoairs, you notice that he does make mistakes in his books. You will never get a book 100% factually correct, never, however the mistakes that he has made are in some cases pretty severe. Therefore, he is not considered as anything reliable to go by.

 

Can for example an Mi-24 make a barrel roll? For sure, there are heavier utility helicopters that have done that before, and wings do not really prevent it from doing it.

 

Take a look at this:

 

https://youtu.be/MQ7pVjQ5Y5g

 

H-53 is a cow compared to a Hind. The reason you don’t see Hinds doing this on airshows, and few helicopters in general doing it, is because of levels of stress on the airframe. Read $$$ - Someone has to pay, and it ain’t the military with their deep pockets and unrestricted “black” programs.

 

In Afganistan, the MIL-technicians that first got there in the beginning of the war for inspection, were surprised to see flight recorder-values that were 2-, sometimes 3-times higher than what the manual permitted (speed, pitch, roll, bank, etc…). That was what often what had to be done in order to escape ground fire. We will never know what was done IRL, only the pilots, technicians and soldiers know what happened.

Edited July 30, 2021 by zerO_crash

[stuart666]

14 hours ago, rogorogo said:

 

you are very very right.. and it also may be a bug. We should hope it is a bug, because this is not accurate, not fidelic, not anything at all - especially when compared to before.

 

 

 

It feels to me there is no inertia. Before it felt like a big tub of armour, now it just fleets incredibly light, so you can throw it around with abandon.

 

Im surprised that so few others have noticed it.

[admiki]

There is inertia for me when I try to recover from dive after breaking off from attack

[Kepford97]

Hi.. not sure if this is of any interest or has been posted before.. it is about a D model ... but you may find it interesting

 

https://verticalmag.com/features/getting-front-mi-24-hind/

Edited July 27, 2021 by Kepford97
syntax error

[rogorogo]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb stuart666:

It feels to me there is no inertia. Before it felt like a big tub of armour, now it just fleets incredibly light, so you can throw it around with abandon.

 

Im surprised that so few others have noticed it.

yes... that is very... surprising. 

Because this sudden complete absence of mass, weight, inertia, momentum (4 different things) means thins being absent that are especially relevant to this rotary aiframe. Its character and its uniqueness.

But if you notice closely how those that see "no issue" describe how "everything is ok" and "but there is..." you quickly get the impression that they do not really have any familiarity with how an rotary aiframe, any of them  "feels" and "behaves", how it translates inputs an communicates is movement.. and how this feeling, this impression can be recreated in a fligh sim.

This can be unfamiliarity, this can be being completely uncritical, or just focus on completely different aspects instead of fidelic flight. Many things.
If one were to did deeper we would probably soon arrive at very memey actual references and cognitive mappings, often.
Even in this thread you can find very exemplary reactions. But that is human nature... not everyone has the necessary cognition, or the interest for a more removed, intersubjective assessment of an issue, the capacity for necessary extrapolation, the often weird twists of experience translation in different media (fe RL and a FS).
Also please do not forget that contemporariy many people, way more than before, especially in "gaming" prefer "being right" or even "being a confirming echo iteration of any dominant message" over factual gnosis.
Also... never underestimate social peer group dynamics.

What matters more imo is if the product provider being dedicated to maintain the proclaimed fidelic scope of the product and not twist it to something else for marginally more sales potential in perception. And that has always seemed to be the case.
But therefore there were other pecularities, especially in communication (upstream and downstream). Which is why getting the message across, raising awareness, especially from the english speaking channels is even more difficult, and the intent (as I tried) has to be expressively stated - in the absence of proper widespread consumers "noticing", the absence of spontaneous "problem consensus" in a fractured-by-its-very-nature consumer voice of diverse and often conflicting (in goals) interests, preferences, priorities, perceptions.

That one sentence "before it felt like a big tub of..." describes the Shaitan-Arba quite well, and I would urge you (and anyone else acknowledging the topic) to please contribute to the bug description I linked, as extensively as you can. I think this the best we can do, to raise awareness in proper channels without the taint of opinionating.

[stuart666]

4 hours ago, admiki said:

There is inertia for me when I try to recover from dive after breaking off from attack

 

In pitch I dont doubt you are right. But it just doesnt seem to be there in roll anymore.

 

3 hours ago, Kepford97 said:

Hi.. not sure if this is of any interest or has been posted before.. it is about a D model ... but you may find it interesting

 

https://verticalmag.com/features/getting-front-mi-24-hind/

 

 

Yes, thank you for that.  I read that and a few other accounts of people flying the Bulgarian Hind. The really kicker is this.

 

'However, the wings, which are prone to stalling, also limit the aircraft’s maneuverability. Rolling into a turn, the wings tend to continue the banking action and must be counteracted with lateral cyclic; beyond a certain angle of bank, that cyclic authority simply runs out. “From an agility standpoint, Western helicopters have an advantage,” Totty said. “A turning fight is not where the Hind pilot wants to be.” In the Mi-24D, the aircraft’s low-pressure hydraulics also impose constraints on maneuverability (a shortcoming that has been remedied in the latest Mi-24 models).'

 

That certainly was present in the first model. You could, If I remember rightly, go into a turn, and it would want to keep going, presumably why the Soviets put a limit of a 30 degree bank on it. It was also hard to get it into a turn, particularly when fast. Yes, it was perhaps overdone (not helped by the tail rotor stabilizer problems we all saw), but it was certainly present. You could also see these wide turns in footage of the Hind in Syria.

 

 

1 hour ago, rogorogo said:

yes... that is very... surprising. 

Because this sudden complete absence of mass, weight, inertia, momentum (4 different things) means thins being absent that are especially relevant to this rotary aiframe. Its character and its uniqueness.

But if you notice closely how those that see "no issue" describe how "everything is ok" and "but there is..." you quickly get the impression that they do not really have any familiarity with how an rotary aiframe, any of them  "feels" and "behaves", how it translates inputs an communicates is movement.. and how this feeling, this impression can be recreated in a fligh sim.

This can be unfamiliarity, this can be being completely uncritical, or just focus on completely different aspects instead of fidelic flight. Many things.
If one were to did deeper we would probably soon arrive at very memey actual references and cognitive mappings, often.
Even in this thread you can find very exemplary reactions. But that is human nature... not everyone has the necessary cognition, or the interest for a more removed, intersubjective assessment of an issue, the capacity for necessary extrapolation, the often weird twists of experience translation in different media (fe RL and a FS).
Also please do not forget that contemporariy many people, way more than before, especially in "gaming" prefer "being right" or even "being a confirming echo iteration of any dominant message" over factual gnosis.
Also... never underestimate social peer group dynamics.

What matters more imo is if the product provider being dedicated to maintain the proclaimed fidelic scope of the product and not twist it to something else for marginally more sales potential in perception. And that has always seemed to be the case.
But therefore there were other pecularities, especially in communication (upstream and downstream). Which is why getting the message across, raising awareness, especially from the english speaking channels is even more difficult, and the intent (as I tried) has to be expressively stated - in the absence of proper widespread consumers "noticing", the absence of spontaneous "problem consensus" in a fractured-by-its-very-nature consumer voice of diverse and often conflicting (in goals) interests, preferences, priorities, perceptions.

That one sentence "before it felt like a big tub of..." describes the Shaitan-Arba quite well, and I would urge you (and anyone else acknowledging the topic) to please contribute to the bug description I linked, as extensively as you can. I think this the best we can do, to raise awareness in proper channels without the taint of opinionating.

 

Ill be honest, Ive never flown a  'real' rotary wing aircraft, so I dont wish to appear I am in a really good place to offer an opinion.  But ive spent a lot of time on the Huey, and a fair amount of time on the Hip. How it feels now is remarkably like the Hip when its unloaded.  The Hip, Ironically, everyone on the forum there is saying how aged the Hip flight model felt compared to the Hind!

 

 

I think whats thrown me, we had a model, yes it clearly needed some modification. But it felt, broadly, like a solid base to build on. And now it just feels like something completely different. That heaviness in the turn in particular is what sold it to me when I got it. It clearly felt like an aircraft with some weight behind it, and relucant to turn, particularly when heavily loaded. And now it just feels like that has all been turned off. So they clearly were wrong at least once, the question is, was it wrong then, or wrong now? It certainly does not fit the written accounts as we can see.

 

I dont think they would twist it to make it more popular. They clearly had at least one Hind crewman on the dev team, I cant see them taking 'Turn on the arcade model!' as a insturction lightly.

 

Ah, I dont know. I know I hear people on here all the time saying 'I dont like this, why isnt it more maneuvrable', particularly on the F14 forum. I dont want to be like that and offer a Warthunder opinion.  But to me, it feels far stranger now than it did when it was released.  Thats an opinion offered on flying all the other rotory wing aircraft in DCS. Yes, including the Gazelle.

 

It would be good to hear form the devs and hear their take on this. Was there anything left out, is there any more work going to be done on this?

Edited July 27, 2021 by stuart666

[rogorogo]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb stuart666:

 

In pitch I dont doubt you are right. But it just doesnt seem to be there in roll anymore.

 

 

Yes, thank you for that.  I read that and a few other accounts of people flying the Bulgarian Hind. The really kicker is this.

 

'However, the wings, which are prone to stalling, also limit the aircraft’s maneuverability. Rolling into a turn, the wings tend to continue the banking action and must be counteracted with lateral cyclic; beyond a certain angle of bank, that cyclic authority simply runs out. “From an agility standpoint, Western helicopters have an advantage,” Totty said. “A turning fight is not where the Hind pilot wants to be.” In the Mi-24D, the aircraft’s low-pressure hydraulics also impose constraints on maneuverability (a shortcoming that has been remedied in the latest Mi-24 models).'

 

That certainly was present in the first model. You could, If I remember rightly, go into a turn, and it would want to keep going, presumably why the Soviets put a limit of a 30 degree bank on it. It was also hard to get it into a turn, particularly when fast. Yes, it was perhaps overdone (not helped by the tail rotor stabilizer problems we all saw), but it was certainly present. You could also see these wide turns in footage of the Hind in Syria.

 

 

 

Ill be honest, Ive never flown a  'real' rotary wing aircraft, so I dont wish to appear I am in a really good place to offer an opinion.  But ive spent a lot of time on the Huey, and a fair amount of time on the Hip. How it feels now is remarkably like the Hip when its unloaded.  The Hip, Ironically, everyone on the forum there is saying how aged the Hip flight model felt compared to the Hind!

 

 

I think whats thrown me, we had a model, yes it clearly needed some modification. But it felt, broadly, like a solid base to build on. And now it just feels like something completely different. That heaviness in the turn in particular is what sold it to me when I got it. It clearly felt like an aircraft with some weight behind it, and relucant to turn, particularly when heavily loaded. And now it just feels like that has all been turned off. So they clearly were wrong at least once, the question is, was it wrong then, or wrong now? It certainly does not fit the written accounts as we can see.

 

I dont think they would twist it to make it more popular. They clearly had at least one Hind crewman on the dev team, I cant see them taking 'Turn on the arcade model!' as a insturction lightly.

 

Ah, I dont know. I know I hear people on here all the time saying 'I dont like this, why isnt it more maneuvrable', particularly on the F14 forum. I dont want to be like that and offer a Warthunder opinion.  But to me, it feels far stranger now than it did when it was released.  Thats an opinion offered on flying all the other rotory wing aircraft in DCS. Yes, including the Gazelle.

 

It would be good to hear form the devs and hear their take on this. Was there anything left out, is there any more work going to be done on this?

 

 

hmm.. well on the most basic level... the real danger lies in repeating past mistakes...
(as in technical mistakes). Eagle often does not seem to have a systemic, release based knowledge managment. And the Hip (which I do not have as a module) had its own bug problems concerning mass and weight (unloaded stated, slingload mass).
Too often from an outside perspective core Eagle seems to start its thinking process from scratch over and over and not continously going forward based on properly accumulated and knowledge-managed processes.

And while it took years - and a change in ownership - to seemingly change this approach, this "corporate entity character/attitude/culture/personality" when it comes to for-market productiona and franchise cohesion, who knows and who could tell what and how things are on the technical, the development side.

But I think whoever said "how aged the Hip FM felt comared to the Hind!" was very right - when and if refering to how the Hind "felt" before the current state (so for at max 1,5 patches).
And not about comparing rotary aiframes (those two are completely different in everything) but how the flightmodel in itself was far more sophisticated in translating the experienced, the airframe feedback, the I/O of that rotary (aka the Shaitan-Arba) within th confines of a flightsim.

On the other hand, I watched some Russian primary exchanges with the relevant and airframe-knowledge lead function and had someone with the right sensitivies and knowledge translate and discourse with me about them. And from an IT/game/flightsim genre/devstudio/PM/agile/SCRUM perspective there were some things worrysome even in this secondary consumption of out-market coms. Refering to exactly priorly stated issues. It is also not something to be done often... there are more pressing issues in the scarce commodity of "metime" to allocate increments of said time to.

But then again we see Eagle also cleaning up shop. Finally starting to get some guidelines established for the entire franchise. Defining core competences and global standards, like fe now missiles are to be coded by everyone and to what outlines (finally). Attempt era cohesion, roadmapping assets, territories, scenarios. Somwhat grudingly acknowlegde that PvA is the future of the industry. Looking at global industry standards instead of proprietary everything (and then resting 15+ years unattended) for the most basic and core technical functions.

But again... that is a whole other level of discussion.. also fishing by hand.. in a muddy pond.. blindfolded. But what we can take away is that unlike some 3rd party participants in the franchise clear and properly communicated intentions beyond any ambiguity is not something we are to come across from core Eagle. Not in the english com-channels, not in the Russian ones.

But again, anyone with earnest analytical intent should see the current state at being completely "off" (even seomewhat literally "off"). It almost screams into our faces as an issue. 
Just by direct comparison just within the scope of DCS blind of any fidelic comparision outside from "now" to "before". Just by looking at now 35s and 24s behave when watching them, on videos, in airshows, in demonstrations, in maneuvers. Just by reading books with open eyes and comparing to digital experiences and media. Looking at Berkut programms. Any experience in any rotary, be it as passenger, student, occasional or even one time "if you want you can now...".

To what degree doubts or just a critical thought about a potential issue can be substantiated by what set of experiences, education,  topical competences is again a secondary factor. Bolstering a descriptive expression, extending it maybe. But just trying suitable to point out an issue with proper assessment also holds merit on its own.
Because a fact is a fact - and if the sky is blue its blue and to assess its colour as blue is just that.

• And currently the mass, the weight, the inertia is absent with the Crocodile.
• Currrently the AP Heading channel (H-channel for НАПРАВЛЕНИЕ, and being the "yaw" channel)  randomly starts going to max in low torque scenarios or just behaves plain bonkers.
• Currently VRS still happens as before with zero symptons, .. but falling out of the sky feels like in wadding instead of a stone dropping (or 10 tons of it)
• Currently the nose just noclip reacts.
• Currently every touch on the joystic (cyclic), just the weight of the hand on the throttle (collective) causes an immediately noticeable effect.
• Curently every reactive, every catpure input causes overreactions, oscillation buildup in everything (inputs, behaviour aso)
• Curently torque autority loss happens at the most awkard moments
• Currently any hover any bank any maneuver the Croc twitches randomly around and out of it
• and a lot more

And anyone being properly attentive is qualified to point that out, is qualified to notice.
And looking up the sky is still blue (actually is in this very moment), not neongreen, not ironman-skinned, not tesseracted.
And my teacup has mass and weight and does not noclip float up from my desk

 

 

Edited July 27, 2021 by rogorogo

[Dr_Arrow]

24 minutes ago, rogorogo said:

• And currently the mass, the weight, the inertia is absent with the Crocodile.
• Currrently the AP Heading channel (H-channel for НАПРАВЛЕНИЕ, and being the "yaw" channel)  randomly starts going to max in low torque scenarios or just behaves plain bonkers.
• Currently VRS still happens as before with zero symptons, .. but falling out of the sky feels like in wadding instead of a stone dropping (or 10 tons of it)
• Currently the nose just noclip reacts.
• Currently every touch on the joystic (cyclic), just the weight of the hand on the throttle (collective) causes an immediately noticeable effect.
• Curently every reactive, every catpure input causes overreactions, oscillation buildup in everything (inputs, behaviour aso)
• Curently torque autority loss happens at the most awkard moments
• Currently any hover any bank any maneuver the Croc twitches randomly around and out of it

I am sorry, but in my opinion this is just a bunch of over exaggerated general claims based on no evidence, but your feelings, which just shows that you probably have no clue what it takes to create a dynamic flight model. Every point can be easily disproved, just saying that the mass weight and inertia is absent in a flight model disqualifies anything you say about the topic of flight modeling as these are the absolutely basic building blocks of any flight model.

[Rabies]

36 minutes ago, rogorogo said:

 

hmm.. well on the most basic level... the real danger lies in repeating past mistakes...
(as in technical mistakes). Eagle often does not seem to have a systemic, release based knowledge managment. And the Hip (which I do not have as a module) had its own bug problems concerning mass and weight (unloaded stated, slingload mass).
Too often from an outside perspective core Eagle seems to start its thinking process from scratch over and over and not continously going forward based on properly accumulated and knowledge-managed processes.

And while it took years - and a change in ownership - to seemingly change this approach, this "corporate entity character/attitude/culture/personality" when it comes to for-market productiona and franchise cohesion, who knows and who could tell what and how things are on the technical, the development side.

But I think whoever said "how aged the Hip FM felt comared to the Hind!" was very right - when and if refering to how the Hind "felt" before the current state (so for at max 1,5 patches).
And not about comparing rotary aiframes (those two are completely different in everything) but how the flightmodel in itself was far more sophisticated in translating the experienced, the airframe feedback, the I/O of that rotary (aka the Shaitan-Arba) within th confines of a flightsim.

On the other hand, I watched some Russian primary exchanges with the relevant and airframe-knowledge lead function and had someone with the right sensitivies and knowledge translate and discourse with me about them. And from an IT/game/flightsim genre/devstudio/PM/agile/SCRUM perspective there were some things worrysome even in this secondary consumption of out-market coms. Refering to exactly priorly stated issues. It is also not something to be done often... there are more pressing issues in the scarce commodity of "metime" to allocate increments of said time to.

But then again we see Eagle also cleaning up shop. Finally starting to get some guidelines established for the entire franchise. Defining core competences and global standards, like fe now missiles are to be coded by everyone and to what outlines (finally). Attempt era cohesion, roadmapping assets, territories, scenarios. Somwhat grudingly acknowlegde that PvA is the future of the industry. Looking at global industry standards instead of proprietary everything (and then resting 15+ years unattended) for the most basic and core technical functions.

But again... that is a whole other level of discussion.. also fishing by hand.. in a muddy pond.. blindfolded. But what we can take away is that unlike some 3rd party participants in the franchise clear and properly communicated intentions beyond any ambiguity is not something we are to come across from core Eagle. Not in the english com-channels, not in the Russian ones.

But again, anyone with earnest analytical intent should see the current state at being completely "off" (even seomewhat literally "off"). It almost screams into our faces as an issue. 
Just by direct comparison just within the scope of DCS blind of any fidelic comparision outside from "now" to "before". Just by looking at now 35s and 24s behave when watching them, on videos, in airshows, in demonstrations, in maneuvers. Just by reading books with open eyes and comparing to digital experiences and media. Looking at Berkut programms. Any experience in any rotary, be it as passenger, student, occasional or even one time "if you want you can now...".

To what degree doubts or just a critical thought about a potential issue can be substantiated by what set of experiences, education,  topical competences is again a secondary factor. Bolstering a descriptive expression, extending it maybe. But just trying suitable to point out an issue with proper assessment also holds merit on its own.
Because a fact is a fact - and if the sky is blue its blue and to assess its colour as blue is just that.

• And currently the mass, the weight, the inertia is absent with the Crocodile.
• Currrently the AP Heading channel (H-channel for НАПРАВЛЕНИЕ, and being the "yaw" channel)  randomly starts going to max in low torque scenarios or just behaves plain bonkers.
• Currently VRS still happens as before with zero symptons, .. but falling out of the sky feels like in wadding instead of a stone dropping (or 10 tons of it)
• Currently the nose just noclip reacts.
• Currently every touch on the joystic (cyclic), just the weight of the hand on the throttle (collective) causes an immediately noticeable effect.
• Curently every reactive, every catpure input causes overreactions, oscillation buildup in everything (inputs, behaviour aso)
• Curently torque autority loss happens at the most awkard moments
• Currently any hover any bank any maneuver the Croc twitches randomly around and out of it

And anyone being properly attentive is qualified to point that out, is qualified to notice.
And looking up the sky is still blue (actually is in this very moment), not neongreen, not ironman-skinned, not tesseracted.
And my teacup has mass and weight and does not noclip float up from my desk

 

 

You sound like the type of person that would argue the fact that if you were to be marching out of step in a military parade and the Drill Sergeant were to inform you of that fact, you would argue to the contrary and state it is you that is instep and everyone else is out of step. 

[stuart666]

Ok, well im going to flag this is as a bug. I actually managed to throw the aircraft over its right shoulder in a bank a real hind would never have done. It was practically a Blue Thunderesqe loop.

 

Seems to me that it gets worse if you turn the pitch and roll stab on. Turn it off its a little heavier, but much. There is nothing like the account above where you hit a particular bank and it wants to keep going. It just keeps going with left or right stick as long as you want it with no ill effects.

[Pit_Toyuwo]

On 7/26/2021 at 10:56 AM, kotor633 said:

By the way: I don't know if it is possible in real life, but with the Mi-8 with the appropriate height & speed I can also get a barrel roll in DCS ... 

 

I don’t know about the mi8 but the mi24 can barrel roll in real life. Apparently when pilots showed this to the designers and engineers they did not know it was even possible.

[stuart666]

Fully loaded?

 

I struggle to believe it can do an over the shoulder loop either, again fully loaded.

[Grodlund]

Also take into consideration.

Things that might be possible in real life might still be something a pilot would never do.

Because of stress on the airframe, risk of damage, risk of DEATH etc etc

 

But in a simulator we don't pay for airframes, repairs, and when we die, we can simply respawn.

The aircraft might be capable of more things, that no sane person would ever attempt in real life

[Dragon1-1]

Test pilots have actually done such things. In fact, their job is exactly to establish what you can do and what you can't. Of course, the aircraft is new and they have a license to wreck it in the process of testing. And sometimes, they die when doing that that (even more so back in the day, when computer modeling was very limited). If you want to know the true physical limits of a given aircraft, ask the test pilots (or dig up their reports about it).

[Pit_Toyuwo]

4 hours ago, stuart666 said:

Fully loaded?

 

I struggle to believe it can do an over the shoulder loop either, again fully loaded.

Mil mi24 hind gunship by Alexander Mladenov. That’s where I did read this. It definitely can do barrel rolls. I have no idea if it is fully loaded or not, I would tend to think that it would not be such a great idea to do barrel roll fully loaded and that as a combat manoeuvre it’s useless.

 

Nonetheless at the beginning of its deployment in afghanistan pilots did show to Mil that their helicopter could do this and apparently the designers didn’t think it was posdible.

[Pit_Toyuwo]

apache can

 

lynx can

 

But I am trying to find mi24 aerobatics featuring barrel rolls and nobody does that apparently. So it’s probably not the safest helicopter to do that with… but it supposedly can.

 

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by Pit_Toyuwo

[stuart666]

1 hour ago, Pit_Toyuwo said:

Mil mi24 hind gunship by Alexander Mladenov. That’s where I did read this. It definitely can do barrel rolls. I have no idea if it is fully loaded or not, I would tend to think that it would not be such a great idea to do barrel roll fully loaded and that as a combat manoeuvre it’s useless.

 

Nonetheless at the beginning of its deployment in afghanistan pilots did show to Mil that their helicopter could do this and apparently the designers didn’t think it was posdible.

 

I notice I actually have that one on Kindle, but Id completely missed that reference!

 

The Yefim Gordon book certainly does relate the Mil designers were surprised at what Pilots in Afghanistan were doing with the airframe. Annoyingly it doesnt say precisely WHAT they were doing with it.

 

Hmm. Ok, Ill buy rolls  then, thank you for sharing that. It still doesnt feel like the airframe has the weight it once did, but  maybe it was overdone before. Annoyingly I rather liked the tub of lard feel.

 

Ive upped the bug file here. Id be curious to know what people think of the track file.

 

Edited July 29, 2021 by stuart666