Flight model changes in 1.2.0

[Bushmanni]

It seems there's been some work done on the flight model. You will need more collective in hover and high speed performance is slightly reduced. Cyclic control is also reduced more than before when collective is lowered. Cyclic is also less twitchy than before. Has anyone else similar observations? It would be cool to know from ED what has been actually done.

[ajax]

It seems it takes more collective now and that the lift response is a little slower.

[leafer]

Yeap. A lot more collective to get it off the ground now. Had to relearn how to land it but that might just be me.

[lvl4f]

if I've noticed too, even perform a test barrel is much more difficult because the helicopter does not rotate on virtually the same axis.

 

I think we have concentrated on fixing the trimm and therefore change the flight model ... a shame.

 

Sorry for my bad English.

[Nate--IRL--]

Yes we've been working very hard on the Placebo effect - glad you like it, it took ages to get right.

 

Nate

[leafer]

:P

[ajax]

I'm sorry, but there is a difference. I can run BS1, BS2, and BS2W one after the other and they do behave differently. In BS1 and BS2 when I pull all the way up on the collective, the warning tones beep. In BS2W they don't.

[TurboHog]

Ah! I'm not the only one!

 

I used to cruise with around 50% collective. Now I need at least 75% at cruise speeds.

 

Quite a change... why? Is this how it should be? She feels so sluggish :(

[Migow]

+1:huh:

[Kalahari]

Generally handles a lot better now,used to have a mini mind of its own,though I suspect my flying is not that good either.

[TurboHog]

Tested mountain flying.

 

I can only conclude that the flight dynamics are broken. My service ceiling is below 10000ft as I couldn't clear a 10000ft mountain. Lost all speed and was able to maintain a max power hover at 9500ft. Hovering at a higher altitude is not possible. This 9500ft should be almost twice as high! 18000ft is the official service ceiling. 9500ft is not even a service ceiling, it is actually the maximum altitude one can possibly reach.

 

This thread should be moved to bugs and problems. I hope this will be fixed. This is not DCS :(.

 

Check out last part of attached track. Can't clear that mountain, which is WAAAAY below service ceiling!

 

EDIT:

 

Hold on... currently testing super light loadout.

 

EDIT2:

 

Still broken FD. Took a loadout with no weapons and 25% fuel. Able to reach 15000ft. But don't think of any 'service' at 15000 feet. I don't know how the 18000ft service ceiling is defined in terms of loadout, but it is clear that the KA-50 in it's current state is not realistic in performance. There is this video on youtube showing a guy flying at 18000 feet with combat loadout. ED, why do you break things only to fix or having to fix them later?

Where's the power.trk

Edited July 14, 2012 by TurboHog

[Esac_mirmidon]

You must be kiddin´

 

I was able to reach 16.500 ft without any problem at all, and without any special care in my handling, only taking care of my climbing speed between 120-140 ( the recommended speed for best perfomance climb) and in a clean configuration with 100% internal fuel capacity.

 

Reaching 16.500 ft perfectly, and only the anti icing system must be activated to avoid engines stop.

 

Also the related service celing for the Ka-50 is around 16.500 ft, not 18.000. It ´s possible with a extreme low weight configuration and a very kind handling to get higher but not to much more.

 

The hover ceiling is even below that, around 12.000 ft.

Edited July 14, 2012 by Esac_mirmidon

[Nate--IRL--]

Esac_mirmidon you must be mistaken AFAIK the placebo effect prohibits flight above 8000ft. I suggest you reinstall, there is something clearly wrong with your install.

 

Nate

[TurboHog]

Show me a track. In my track you can see how I cannot clear a 10000ft mountain, while approaching it at the recommended speed.

 

No more sarcasm Nate, this is no placebo. Why do I have to use around 25% more collective during cruise? Please tell me that the flight dynamics are, after three years, finally realistic. But it sounds a bit strange, doesn't it?

Edited July 14, 2012 by TurboHog

[AlphaOneSix]

Well I'm toodling along right now at 5400m (17700ft) and it flies just fine...120km/hr TAS (90km/hr IAS).

 

I started at sea level at 15C and 760mmHg in a clean configuration (no flares, gun ammo, or wing stores) and full fuel. I have anti-ice and de-ice off. All of these are part of the standard definition of service ceiling.

 

Okay I was alt-tabbed out for a minute there. I'm now at 5423m (17800ft) and 111km/hr TAS (84km/hr IAS).

 

EDIT: Power setting is whatever collective pitch angle puts me just below power limiting.

 

EDIT 2: I just realized I left my gear down the entire time. Oops.

Edited July 14, 2012 by AlphaOneSix

[EtherealN]

Show me a track. In my track you can see how I cannot clear a 10000ft mountain, while approaching it at the recommended speed.

 

Standby.

[TurboHog]

I was able to do the mission 'altitude' very well using the recommended loadout.

 

After further testing I have to adjust my conclusions:

 

- Performance is much more weight dependant. I was not able to clear a 10000ft mountain with full loadout, yet I was able to to fly the mission altitude flying comfortably at FL140.

- You need the same amount of collective in hover compared to FFF. In normal speed FF you need less collective. This is the best speed for power/lift and explains this behaviour? I was previously able to maintain 50% collective in FFF. Now I need 50% more.

- Takeoff requires more collective.

- My first conclusions were too fast and exaggerated as usual.

[ALDEGA]

With full fuel and no munition, I was able to reach FL210 without problem. :D

[EtherealN]

Here you go, went to 18k feet. Wasn't really paying attention (was working on the other screen) so the flying is shoddy.

Ka-50_altitude.trk

[EtherealN]

- Performance is much more weight dependant.

 

Well, that's obvious. ;)

It always was. No change.

 

- You need the same amount of collective in hover compared to FFF. In normal speed FF you need less collective.

 

You get more lift in forward flight than in a hover. This is because:

L = Cl * A * ½ * r * V²

 

(Where V is velocity, TAS, note that this term is squared.)

 

The rest is placebo. I get exactly the same behaviour in 1.2.0 as in 1.1.1.1. There were no changes made that are relevant to this.

[Jona33]

In South Osetia Pirates I was easily clearing 10,000 feet with the standard load, even at the beginning with a lot of fuel. (Me and my wingman were then shot down by MANPAD's and the heli's crashed almost on top of each other. :D)

[Shadow060]

Just upgraded after reading this thread, and having played the 1.1... version prior to the 1.2 upgrade I have to agree that there is definately a difference in the amount of collective needed to maintain altitude/hover. There's more pitch in my rotors in 1.2 versus 1.1...

[Cali]

Having only played BS1 and haven't tried out DCSW with BS2 I can say I don't know if there is a change or not. Even when I do find time to test DCSW BS2 out I won't remember what or how to fly the BS, so I'll be relearning everything again.

[Dejjvid]

Well, in 100% certain i need to raise my throttle (collective in game) higher then I did with previous installs. It's not an issue at all, it's probably with the curve mapping or something.

 

You notice this especially during takeoffs and hovering. The needed IRL travel is something like 1-2cm more than before.

[ikaro]

Same happens to me.

I load a single mission in both versions... the same single mission... take off from ramp without external loads and 90% of fuel. Is a sunny day without wind and clouds. In the previous version, the helicopter starts to take off with a blade angle 7º, while the new version, I have to pull up more than 10º blade. :(

 

Besides the feeling you have, is that you need more engine power to make a manual hoover, and the colective control seems less precise.

 

I don´t think in a placebo effect... but a fact confirmed.

:detective: