ALPHASIM BLACKHAWK control

Gregory Paul said:
Michael I think the UH-60 is great! I only had 2 "problems" if I may call it that. The first one was fixed as I stated above. The other "problem" if I may call it that was the sound. That sound was just all wrong! It was not even close to what a real Uh-60 sounds like to me. The day before I brought the AS UH-60 I went out to my local airport because there was a UH-60L flying into my local airport and I went out to see it. Maybe i'm just being picky but the sound that came with it did not match to me. Anyway I am using the defaul EH-101 sound with the Blackhawk which is a lot better to me.:d I also added an autopilot and have flew all over with this setup. Here is a photo of the UH-60 that I am talking about.:d
Click to expand...

Sounds were not my remit, but I did voice similar views during testing, I believe the sounds came from TSS so they 'must' be right and clearly I didn't know what I was talking about ?, never mind ehh :mixedsmi:.

I'm pleased to see you managed to adjust the scalars to suit your preference, they are probably the best way to modifiy the feel on a one to one airframe basis, rather than a sim basis.

Best

Michael,
 
Thanks to all. I've plenty of food for thought here and as I have the SDK I checked on the previous post. I should give it a try if only to educate myself. Wish I had pedals so I'll put them in my letter to Santa.

Nice photo of the UH-60.
 
I hope I didn't offend you Michael. I will try some of your ideas and play more with the helo. Sadly, often time my first impressions stick for a long time as I am rarely able to spend more than an hour's time with any particular airframe that I am not working on. This helo was no exception. I spent about 30 minutes playing with it and promptly put it back on the shelf. I should give it more of a chance.

Again, my apologies. I'll get back to you with my findings however to show some commitment on my end. I can't guarantee anything soon unfortunately.
 
CodyValkyrie said:
I hope I didn't offend you Michael.
Click to expand...

Not at all.

People should feel comfortable within the first few minutes or at least be able to feel they can master it with a little effort if they wish too.

I understand the reticence for people to speak up, especially now, as there isnt an 'easy' place for people to do this since Alphasim virtually severed all public communication. Adjustments and alterations to things like the FDE are easily accomplished and forwarded, ammendments and modifications to root model issues are almost impossible to accomplish.

Helo FDEs can be bent to suit almost any ones sensitivities, obviously you cannot do that at a commercial level but at street level there is no reason in my mind why help should not be given to let someone get the most from their wares.

Best

Michael
 
thank you

Michael,

Captdoug here, thank you for clarifing some important issues with the blackhawk, and please formost...do not take any of my above comments peronally. I couldn't design a square box in any version of MSFS so your work and talent is certainly appreciated.

I opened this pandora's box, but not as a technical support request, I would have addressed that directley with AlphaSim. I was fishing for suggestions to alter the flight dynamics of the blackhawk. Your information covered a few things I had not considered.

I mentioned what appears to me as the helo's easy ability to seesaw, which in my case permited without extreme care an entry in pitch osilation conditions. I did not check my weight and balance so this may be a factor.

My realism is set to full real so now i know that is correct, relevant to your design intent.

I tryed the air.cfg mod mentioned above and it seemed to help significanlty in my case. I did make the BH feel heavier witch I believe you mentioned. I'll switch back to the original .cfg data set my weight and balance more carefully and reconfirm my sim settings.

That may make the helo better than I had originaly experienced.

As for the sounds, my opinion is they are not deep Bass enough, but that's not a complaint just a thought seeing that a comment was made.

Perhaps the Blackhawk is recieving this much scrutany is because of it's overall value to our FS fleets, it's such an impressed piece of equiptment
with so much FS flying potential, that we are trying to make it all it can be. It's one of those potential benchmark FS addon's. if not that already.

Thanks for all of your help

Captdoug
 
captdoug said:
Michael,

Captdoug here, thank you for clarifing some important issues with the blackhawk, and please formost...do not take any of my above comments peronally. I couldn't design a square box in any version of MSFS so your work and talent is certainly appreciated.

I opened this pandora's box, but not as a technical support request, I would have addressed that directley with AlphaSim. I was fishing for suggestions to alter the flight dynamics of the blackhawk. Your information covered a few things I had not considered.

I mentioned what appears to me as the helo's easy ability to seesaw, which in my case permited without extreme care an entry in pitch osilation conditions. I did not check my weight and balance so this may be a factor.

My realism is set to full real so now i know that is correct, relevant to your design intent.

I tryed the air.cfg mod mentioned above and it seemed to help significanlty in my case. I did make the BH feel heavier witch I believe you mentioned. I'll switch back to the original .cfg data set my weight and balance more carefully and reconfirm my sim settings.

That may make the helo better than I had originaly experienced.

As for the sounds, my opinion is they are not deep Bass enough, but that's not a complaint just a thought seeing that a comment was made.

Perhaps the Blackhawk is recieving this much scrutany is because of it's overall value to our FS fleets, it's such an impressed piece of equiptment
with so much FS flying potential, that we are trying to make it all it can be. It's one of those potential benchmark FS addon's. if not that already.

Thanks for all of your help

Captdoug
Click to expand...

Ok theres two values we can alter in the cfg to effect pitch oscilations and adj as required, the first one is the low realism scalar, this is the scalar for the input, a value of one will equate to an input force of 1 on the joystick which equates to an output of 1, reduce the scalar and the input remains the same but output becomes greater, so if the scalar is 0.5 the the output is 2.

The other value we can alter is the MOI, this is basically the masses resistance to movement and once moving its resistance to stopping, a low MOI will make for a twitchy airframe. Keeping the scalar as 1, with a low MOI an input will give an instant movement and when input is removed the movement will stop, a larger MOI will resist initial movement, but once moving will take longer to stop.

If your issues are in pitch only then I suggest a value of 0.8 for the scalar and I'd suggest a value of about 18,000 for the pitch MOI. This will make oscilations in pitch less easy to induce and dampened by the MOI, of course it may be that it is the MOI thats inducing the oscilation, ie its not stopping fast enough and thus the user is over compensating with reverse forces, so bearing that in mind I'd suggest leaving the scalar at 0.45 and reducing the MOI to say 13,500.

Ironically the tanks do not effect the pitch forces, they are longitudally in line with the CoG, the tank masses tend to effect roll a great deal and a little yaw but no pitch, the four guys body mass in the back will effect pitch as they are aft of the CoG.

So three set ups I'd try are

Scalar 0.45 very tight control and snappy response
MOI 13,500

Scalar 0.8 loose control and normal response
MOI 16,500

Scalar 0.8 loose control and snappy response
MOI 13,500

Pitch scalar is the first of the three figures in the low realism scalar, pitch MOI is just above and easy to spot.

I'd suggest making a back up of your cfg first....just in case, if your happy with the roll and yaw then we're two down and one to go, ironically most people feel discomfort with the yaw first, then roll and I've not heard of pitch issues before, but theres always a first time :mixedsmi:.

See how you get on and let us know which you feel is best, there are some more in depth figures I can change if these dont work.

Best

Michael
 
Panther, from the outside, the Alphasim definately sounds more realistic. The Aerosoft sound is all turbine, no rotors. From about 200-500 feet away sitting on the ground, the Alphasim hawk sounds just like a real one. But in flight, the rotors take a much larger bite out of the air and have a much more bassy hum. Further than about 500 feet away, you can hardly hear the turbines, only the rotors. I don't know if you can tune FS sounds for distance. From a flyby view, neither product sounds very real, but AS is a little closer.

I can't compare internal sounds, as I've only flown on a Blackhawk twice, and I have to say, my mind wasn't one the sound of the helicopter. I do like the way the Aerosoft version's sounds respond to throttle input. The rotors are constant speed, but you do hear the turbines spool up as the rotors demand more torque.
 
chinookmark said:
Panther, from the outside, the Alphasim definately sounds more realistic. The Aerosoft sound is all turbine, no rotors. From about 200-500 feet away sitting on the ground, the Alphasim hawk sounds just like a real one. But in flight, the rotors take a much larger bite out of the air and have a much more bassy hum. Further than about 500 feet away, you can hardly hear the turbines, only the rotors. I don't know if you can tune FS sounds for distance. From a flyby view, neither product sounds very real, but AS is a little closer.

I can't compare internal sounds, as I've only flown on a Blackhawk twice, and I have to say, my mind wasn't one the sound of the helicopter. I do like the way the Aerosoft version's sounds respond to throttle input. The rotors are constant speed, but you do hear the turbines spool up as the rotors demand more torque.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find that the turbines and rotor speed remain constant, IRC engine RPM is around 85% at ground idle and goes to 100% ( pilots overhead throttles ) ready for flight, after that it remains at 100%, so from a start to hover and forward flight the engine RPM will remain constant.

In theory the only sound that will change is the blade sound it should deepen as the blades load up, turbine could alter a small amount as the turbine loads up, but this is not a RPM increase or spool up increase, its a load increase and therefore would be a pitch increase and not a level increase. Once flight RPM is set then the pilots will not normally touch those levers until the end of the flight, all lift and control is on the collective.

I'm not sure about piston helos or lighter turbines, some do have a limited throttle function on the collective.

To all intents and purposes once rotors are at flight RPM the only increase in sound will be the rotor slap and maybe a 10% turbine note change.

Turbo prop aircraft follow the same principle as well, listen to C-130s as they taxi and take off, most will taxi at 100% engine RPM and adjust speed on prop pitch, engine note does not change, even on the take off run, just the prop sounds alter.

One should also remember that each type has in effect a large fan on the end, once that starts to do work its airflow will drastically alter the way the sound travels to the audiance, helicopters can sometimes appear to get quieter as the sound is forced downwards by the down wash just as it takes off, especially the turbine sound whose exhaust is directly below the rotor, blade noise is not effect as much as the blade sound tends to come from the tips and is flung outwards and only a little is entrapped in the down wash.

Thats my understanding anyway from a purely engineering perspective and ground observation of helos in general.

Best

Michael
 
michael davies said:
Ok theres two values we can alter in the cfg to effect pitch oscilations and adj as required, the first one is the low realism scalar, this is the scalar for the input, a value of one will equate to an input force of 1 on the joystick which equates to an output of 1, reduce the scalar and the input remains the same but output becomes greater, so if the scalar is 0.5 the the output is 2.

The other value we can alter is the MOI, this is basically the masses resistance to movement and once moving its resistance to stopping, a low MOI will make for a twitchy airframe. Keeping the scalar as 1, with a low MOI an input will give an instant movement and when input is removed the movement will stop, a larger MOI will resist initial movement, but once moving will take longer to stop.

If your issues are in pitch only then I suggest a value of 0.8 for the scalar and I'd suggest a value of about 18,000 for the pitch MOI. This will make oscilations in pitch less easy to induce and dampened by the MOI, of course it may be that it is the MOI thats inducing the oscilation, ie its not stopping fast enough and thus the user is over compensating with reverse forces, so bearing that in mind I'd suggest leaving the scalar at 0.45 and reducing the MOI to say 13,500.

Ironically the tanks do not effect the pitch forces, they are longitudally in line with the CoG, the tank masses tend to effect roll a great deal and a little yaw but no pitch, the four guys body mass in the back will effect pitch as they are aft of the CoG.

So three set ups I'd try are

Scalar 0.45 very tight control and snappy response
MOI 13,500

Scalar 0.8 loose control and normal response
MOI 16,500

Scalar 0.8 loose control and snappy response
MOI 13,500

Pitch scalar is the first of the three figures in the low realism scalar, pitch MOI is just above and easy to spot.

I'd suggest making a back up of your cfg first....just in case, if your happy with the roll and yaw then we're two down and one to go, ironically most people feel discomfort with the yaw first, then roll and I've not heard of pitch issues before, but theres always a first time :mixedsmi:.

See how you get on and let us know which you feel is best, there are some more in depth figures I can change if these dont work.

Best

Michael
Click to expand...

Michael,

Again thanks,

You defined an area of what I was hoping to describe in my concerns,
but I'm slightly confused by your MOI value data.

The problem I experience is with slightly delayed control input (Pitch)
then a reluctance to terminate the control imput. In my case it creates more control imput to move the helo (pitch) then perhaps even more control imput to terminate the command. Again in my case it allows for easy entry into a moderate induced pitch osillation phase and signifigant pilot time spent trying to remain level in forward travel.

First I will again reconfirm sim realism settings. Now that I know the external tank weight does have a real effect on a seasaw ride I will not be concerned with a .cfg mod for that element.

Of the three values scenerios you describe above would you mind re-expalining which one value entries would very slightly increase control imput and which would also increase the aircraft's ability to stop this new drection of motion so the helo doesn't continue in the new direction without alot more obosite control.

I'm confused about which one to try. It appears to be the first example

0.45 faster repsonse and reduced MOI 13,500 faster stopping of movement


Captdoug
 
captdoug said:
Michael,

Again thanks,

You defined an area of what I was hoping to describe in my concerns,
but I'm slightly confused by your MOI value data.

The problem I experience is with slightly delayed control input (Pitch)
then a reluctance to terminate the control imput. In my case it creates more control imput to move the helo (pitch) then perhaps even more control imput to terminate the command. Again in my case it allows for easy entry into a moderate induced pitch osillation phase and signifigant pilot time spent trying to remain level in forward travel.

First I will again reconfirm sim realism settings. Now that I know the external tank weight does have a real effect on a seasaw ride I will not be concerned with a .cfg mod for that element.

Of the three values scenerios you describe above would you mind re-expalining which one value entries would very slightly increase control imput and which would also increase the aircraft's ability to stop this new drection of motion so the helo doesn't continue in the new direction without alot more obosite control.

I'm confused about which one to try. It appears to be the first example

0.45 faster repsonse and reduced MOI 13,500 faster stopping of movement


Captdoug
Click to expand...

Correct, if you want a snappier feel then reduce your MOI, you may find that it is a little too fierce so increase your scalar, the first option is what I would dial in for very advanced pilots with a very deft light touch, the third option I would use for someone who wants the helo to feel tight but have a relaxed joystick input, ie someone who may have joystick null zone issues or fidgety flying habit. High scalars are a very good way to remove or lessen effects from twist stick controllers, invariably when using the twist function one inadvertently imparts another axis input, not consciously but just enough to then force them to possibly over correct.

Actually null zones are something I did forget to mention for good helo performance you need to set you null zones to 0 or 5%. in a round about way the scalar is also like a joystick null zone, the higher the figure the more you have to move the joystick to get a response.

So to clarify, scalar is for joystick inputs, smaller equals less input to get a response, MOI is the mass factor, higher and it behaves more sloppy, image MOI as a big bag of water hanging on a rope, the more water the harder it is to push and thus stop, that would be high MOI, ie dampened.

Hope that explains it a little better.

Best

Michael
 
Yes it does. Thanks Michael.

I lowered the values for the MOI and left the scalar points as they were by default.

I tweeked them enough to stop some of the "wallowing around" and chasing it's nose,
but to still feel the difference in response between loaded out and empty.

I still might play around abit with the scalar pionts to dial in the controls, but as many here have suggested their is also a learning curve associated with every aircraft. so at the moment I just spend more flight time in the Hawk.

Everyone has been very helpful!

I have a few other questions that have gone unresovled by asking the developers first.

AlphaSim and Iris. ( DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A COMPLAINT) They have great stuff.

I may bring them up here in the forum, if it's ok because there is obviously some very knowlegable people hanging out here and I may find soutions to help make my produts work better. They are not cheap...lol


thanks,

Captdoug
 
Michael,

The turbines definately increase in pitch as the helicopters take off, and when the G load changes, ie: "oh crap power lines" climbs. Actually, in really abrupt manuvers, the rotors will loose a few RPM momentarily, and the engines will scream trying to bring them back up to 100%. I'm not sure exactly what makes the pitch change, but I will ask one of my pilots later. Probably just the turbines loading up with increased torque, but I wouldn't be surprised if N1 speed increased a little bit. Again, I have no Blackhawk time, only a few hundred hours in Chinooks.

But I'm not really prepared for an engineering and physics debate -- just trying to give an idea of what they sound like. When I'm not crewing 'hooks, I have the good fortune to be at a hangar next to the helo passenger terminal in Balad, Iraq. Several times a day, the Hawks will land and hang around for a few minutes picking up passengers, much to the chagrin of my eardrums. Occasionally, something else will land for a bit, CH-46's, Super Hueys, Cobras, Ospreys, and "black helicopters". :kilroy:

I'll try to get a hold of some video, but they never seem to sound right ... always more high pitch whining and wind noise than what they really sound like.
 
chinookmark said:
Michael,

The turbines definately increase in pitch as the helicopters take off, and when the G load changes, ie: "oh crap power lines" climbs. Actually, in really abrupt manuvers, the rotors will loose a few RPM momentarily, and the engines will scream trying to bring them back up to 100%. I'm not sure exactly what makes the pitch change, but I will ask one of my pilots later. Probably just the turbines loading up with increased torque, but I wouldn't be surprised if N1 speed increased a little bit. Again, I have no Blackhawk time, only a few hundred hours in Chinooks.

But I'm not really prepared for an engineering and physics debate -- just trying to give an idea of what they sound like. When I'm not crewing 'hooks, I have the good fortune to be at a hangar next to the helo passenger terminal in Balad, Iraq. Several times a day, the Hawks will land and hang around for a few minutes picking up passengers, much to the chagrin of my eardrums. Occasionally, something else will land for a bit, CH-46's, Super Hueys, Cobras, Ospreys, and "black helicopters". :kilroy:

I'll try to get a hold of some video, but they never seem to sound right ... always more high pitch whining and wind noise than what they really sound like.
Click to expand...

Hey I wont argue with your field experience LOL.

I cannot disagree that engine note will not change when fistfuls of collective are applied, but some lesser informed people might think that the engine note changes as it would on a jet turbine, where N1 varies between idle at say 45% and full thrust at 100%.

I have heard some sim helo sounds that have the engine note changing by that much as collective is applied, ie they have sampled a fixed wing turbine over the blade noise, this is totally incorrect.

Have a chat with your colleagues, I'd be very surprised if Q or N1 changes by more than 10% in the normal flight envelope.

I have pilots notes for the Blackhawk, Apache, Seaking and Chinook ( yes I'm considering one of those too LOL ), if I get some time over the weekend I'll take a quick browse and see if they have any more information that might be of use.

Having said all that, like helo FDEs, sounds are very personalised and subjective, how people hear things is different and often hard to articulate to others.

Keep up the good work out there and stay safe.

Best

Michael
 
captdoug said:
Yes it does. Thanks Michael.

I lowered the values for the MOI and left the scalar points as they were by default.

I tweeked them enough to stop some of the "wallowing around" and chasing it's nose,
but to still feel the difference in response between loaded out and empty.

I still might play around abit with the scalar pionts to dial in the controls, but as many here have suggested their is also a learning curve associated with every aircraft. so at the moment I just spend more flight time in the Hawk.

Everyone has been very helpful!

I have a few other questions that have gone unresovled by asking the developers first.

AlphaSim and Iris. ( DO NOT TAKE THIS AS A COMPLAINT) They have great stuff.

I may bring them up here in the forum, if it's ok because there is obviously some very knowledgeable people hanging out here and I may find solutions to help make my produts work better. They are not cheap...lol


thanks,

Captdoug
Click to expand...

Excellent, I wish many more people would 'experiment' and self help, you just get so much more out of a product when it all drops into place.

Granted the product should be as good as it gets when first received but as this thread has shown, peoples perceptions and feel are wildly different, many people here feel the AS Blackhawk flies fine out of the box, others have tweaked to suit their preferences, with such a wide and diverse perception it is almost impossible as a developer to set up a model to suit everyones tastes.

I do have to clarify that this really only seems to apply to helos, the sim doesn't appear to model helo flight very well at all, so much of the FDE is string and tape to get it to feel semi realistic, with such an approach its no wonder that there are issues on different set ups around the globe. The real fix would be for MS to integrate better helo simulation into their series, it is better in FSx, though much fidelity seems to have been removed, they're more stable in FSx than FS9 thats for sure.

But, until MS do the above, we will have to continue to offer an almost 1:1 support so that users can get the best from their experience.

Regarding other issues, if they are model related then I'm afraid theres a 99% chance that they will never be resolved, given AS recent almost total isolation from the community, I doubt anyone will ever get anything fixed post release, unless there is a huge ground swell of dissent.

Sounds could probably be tweaked or replaced and many people here can help you with that issue.

Gauges are I believe what AS call their real gauge technology, ie they are built into the model and thus not changeable by others outside of the developers. The only gauge issue I can remember is the AH, the panel one is showing as difference of about 5 degrees with relation to the actual flight stance and the digital MFD one. There is a technical reason for this and basically stems from how the model is compiled, to make the model look right in the hover, ie rotor disk flat and tail down, the model is set up like that in the CAD program, we offset the model with a 5 degree rear tilt.

This has an adverse effect that the nose when in full fwd flight will be visually 5 degrees too high, we can change that easily enough by adding drag in a certain area that pushes the nose down, however it does require the gauge modeller to realise that there is a 5 degree aft air frame tilt and thus compensate with a positive offset on the AH gauge model, this wasn't done so one of the AH is slightly out I'm afraid. All of this was discussed in great detail and depth on the old now closed Alphasim forums, the official consensus was that it was a small issue and did not warrant a fix, what the official line is now I have absolutely no idea.

Best

Michael
 
I went to the flightline for a bit today just to listen to the helicopters. The turbines have a dynamic sound that I think is well modeled by the Aerosoft Seahawks, but Turbine Sound Studios absolutely nailed the static external sound. Neither sounds right in a flyby, and neither has that trademark startup howl.

I tried combining the Aerosoft sound pack with the Alphasim sounds, and so far all I've been able to do is make my helicopters sound dynamically ugly. Oh well.

Michael, one thing I noticed is that the Alphasim hawk will float along for a while in an autorotation. I've seen these things in practice autos, and they drop pretty darn quick, but in the sim I'm able to float the length of the runway, engines off, until I get the bird slowed below about 40kts, when it starts losing translational lift. How would I go about tweaking this?

Also, in a Chinook anyway, with the collective dropped all the way to the floor during an auto, the rotors will increase above 100% rpm. Can this be tuned in, so I actually have to manage my airspeed and collective during a rapid descent or auto?
 
chinookmark said:
I went to the flightline for a bit today just to listen to the helicopters. The turbines have a dynamic sound that I think is well modeled by the Aerosoft Seahawks, but Turbine Sound Studios absolutely nailed the static external sound. Neither sounds right in a flyby, and neither has that trademark startup howl.

I tried combining the Aerosoft sound pack with the Alphasim sounds, and so far all I've been able to do is make my helicopters sound dynamically ugly. Oh well.

Michael, one thing I noticed is that the Alphasim hawk will float along for a while in an autorotation. I've seen these things in practice autos, and they drop pretty darn quick, but in the sim I'm able to float the length of the runway, engines off, until I get the bird slowed below about 40kts, when it starts losing translational lift. How would I go about tweaking this?

Also, in a Chinook anyway, with the collective dropped all the way to the floor during an auto, the rotors will increase above 100% rpm. Can this be tuned in, so I actually have to manage my airspeed and collective during a rapid descent or auto?
Click to expand...

You can adjust the float quite easily, the only problem is that it will also restrict your altitude, rate of climb and ability to sustain G or airspeed in a turn, this is where the helo FDE really begins to fall down, fixed wing have about 400 parameters you can adjust, helos have about 40 and this is one area that is very difficult to nail for the majority of users.

I did a lot of work on this area for the updated Apache's and float was better but other areas were cobbled together to try and recover their loses. I'll try and pull that section from the Apache and put it into the Blackhawk and see what happens, probably a fiery mess but my test pilot has good Nomex :mixedsmi:.

Not sure about the collective and rotor RPM, I suspect not to be honest, but you never know I might stumble across something somewhere.

Best

Michael
 
michael davies said:
Excellent, I wish many more people would 'experiment' and self help, you just get so much more out of a product when it all drops into place.

Granted the product should be as good as it gets when first received but as this thread has shown, peoples perceptions and feel are wildly different, many people here feel the AS Blackhawk flies fine out of the box, others have tweaked to suit their preferences, with such a wide and diverse perception it is almost impossible as a developer to set up a model to suit everyones tastes.

I do have to clarify that this really only seems to apply to helos, the sim doesn't appear to model helo flight very well at all, so much of the FDE is string and tape to get it to feel semi realistic, with such an approach its no wonder that there are issues on different set ups around the globe. The real fix would be for MS to integrate better helo simulation into their series, it is better in FSx, though much fidelity seems to have been removed, they're more stable in FSx than FS9 thats for sure.

But, until MS do the above, we will have to continue to offer an almost 1:1 support so that users can get the best from their experience.

Regarding other issues, if they are model related then I'm afraid theres a 99% chance that they will never be resolved, given AS recent almost total isolation from the community, I doubt anyone will ever get anything fixed post release, unless there is a huge ground swell of dissent.

Sounds could probably be tweaked or replaced and many people here can help you with that issue.

Gauges are I believe what AS call their real gauge technology, ie they are built into the model and thus not changeable by others outside of the developers. The only gauge issue I can remember is the AH, the panel one is showing as difference of about 5 degrees with relation to the actual flight stance and the digital MFD one. There is a technical reason for this and basically stems from how the model is compiled, to make the model look right in the hover, ie rotor disk flat and tail down, the model is set up like that in the CAD program, we offset the model with a 5 degree rear tilt.

This has an adverse effect that the nose when in full fwd flight will be visually 5 degrees too high, we can change that easily enough by adding drag in a certain area that pushes the nose down, however it does require the gauge modeller to realise that there is a 5 degree aft air frame tilt and thus compensate with a positive offset on the AH gauge model, this wasn't done so one of the AH is slightly out I'm afraid. All of this was discussed in great detail and depth on the old now closed Alphasim forums, the official consensus was that it was a small issue and did not warrant a fix, what the official line is now I have absolutely no idea.

Best

Michael
Click to expand...

Regards, Michael.

Valuable lessons re-learned here with these discussions

First not everything is as it appears, so one should not jump to a definitive conclusion as I did. Two always consult Yoda.

The Hawk will live to see another day on the HD with new found respect.

Captdoug
 
May the Force.........

captdoug said:
. Two always consult Yoda.
Captdoug
Click to expand...
Bravo, LOL, :costumes::costumes::costumes::costumes: :medals:

Now, why didn't I notice that???? DUH !!!!!!

Anyway, I have paying attention to this thread and making many helo flights ---------with damage enabled -------------to keep me honest ------- I am thankful to all for the help. Especially that the thread got started in the first place.

I have made suggested changes and can now fly the default Accel helo so well, that is for me, that for the first time, I can consider both freeware and payware helos.

I use a twist stick MS sidewinder 2 and am now testing settings which improve every flight, thanks, Michael. I've landed on the moving Accel carriers in somewhat turbulent air ---- put there by me deliberately.

So much for bragging, which is of importance to me, no doubt of scarce value to others, LOL, but I am delighted to thank all posters. :ernae:

I've got a list of test flights so I'll get off my soap box, what's left of it, and into the armchair pilots seat for a few more days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top