-
Please see the most recent updates in the "Where did the .com name go?" thread. Posts number 16 and 17.
June 24, 2010 Milviz Updates- Agusta 109 and Chinook screens.
- Thread starter Roadburner440
- Start date
Yes. This thread should answer some of your questions:
http://www.hovercontrol.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=53;t=17769;st=0
peter12213
FSX Acceleration!
RAF chinooks don't have glass pits only they are being upgraded, but most of them are still steam gauges!
Look In Afghan...
Look In Afghan...
ryanbatc
Charter Member
THanks would you recommend it for default B206?
I also own the Cerasim Bell 412P - have they made new fde's for that bird yet?
I don't have Cerasilm Bell, but I'm using default Bell with HTR 1.05beta, and I love it.
Sorry for hijacking your thread Roadburner440.
krazycolin
Banned
I will talk to Fred about integration but, in all honesty, if we have to license yet another software, the costs will go up!
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
One of the hard parts of helo FDEs with twin rotors, either on the same axis (Ka-50) or two axis (Ch-46/47) is modeling zero rotor torque, its a bear to get rid of, certainly in FS9 and FS9 derivative file formats in FSx, ie ones with rotor parameters in the air file. Additionally, correctly weighted FDEs for helos are a hand full as well, the sim really does prefer that all helos are about the weight of the Bell 202 LOL.
Having said that the Merlin introduced in Accel offers a new FDE format which does model engine power and thus more accurate airframe weights can be modeled, doesnt make it any easier to fine tune the flight envelope though !.
Having said that the Merlin introduced in Accel offers a new FDE format which does model engine power and thus more accurate airframe weights can be modeled, doesnt make it any easier to fine tune the flight envelope though !.
HTR is freeware software, I believe all you'd have to do is to make additional config file. Of course it will take some time.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
It might be freeware but I doubt it'll be allowed in a payware product, generally it is bad for for payware vendors to ship freeware developers skills and tools in a payware product, in fact some freeware developers forbid payware developers to even use their items, either in the final product or development, that is their choice and must be adhered by. One of the few exceptions from times past was Martin Wright who freely gave every one permission to use his tools for what ever use they required.
There is nothing stopping any one adding HTR once they have purchased the model themselves, maybe even offering the revised cfg for others to enjoy, but I suspect it will be seriously frowned upon if that source is the payware developer.
I may have it all wrong, but thats generally how things work viz payware/freeware, or else every one just doesn't like me LOL.
There is nothing stopping any one adding HTR once they have purchased the model themselves, maybe even offering the revised cfg for others to enjoy, but I suspect it will be seriously frowned upon if that source is the payware developer.
I may have it all wrong, but thats generally how things work viz payware/freeware, or else every one just doesn't like me LOL.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
Ohh I agree, not tried HTR but anything is better than default to be honest, even default can be made quite nice, certainly nice enough for those who generally fly fixed wing, to soft and docile for the hard core rotor wing fraternity but nice enough for casual rotor wing flyers.
There in also lies another conundrum, who do you taylor the FDE for, hard core rotor fans or casual rotor fans, which ever you pick will upset the other, and from a commercial point of view, it seems theres more casual rotor simmers than hard core, certainly FDEs set up for that market attract less criticism, probably because its not dificult for the hard core to modify the FDE to suit their personal preferences. Going the other way, ie casual simmers trying to tone down accurate rotor FDEs is much harder.
Best
Michael
There in also lies another conundrum, who do you taylor the FDE for, hard core rotor fans or casual rotor fans, which ever you pick will upset the other, and from a commercial point of view, it seems theres more casual rotor simmers than hard core, certainly FDEs set up for that market attract less criticism, probably because its not dificult for the hard core to modify the FDE to suit their personal preferences. Going the other way, ie casual simmers trying to tone down accurate rotor FDEs is much harder.
Best
Michael
Roadburner440
Charter Member 2010
Don't have to apologize as it is not really hijacking the thread. Just making suggestions about how to make the flight model better. Unfortunately I will have to agree with the consensus that using freeware in a payware product is bad. Is why we like to ask permission from respective developers before even talking about anything like that. As it is their hard work they ultimately decide what/who uses it and how. Although I may have to try this program myself on some helo's and see how it changes the dynamics. I always get upset when helo's keep basically wind vaning trying to go back to the original heading like it is a fixed wing bird. In a no wind environment should be able to put it at X heading and put enough counter torque in and it should hold the heading. We will be working very hard on this though, and I feel the Skycrane's model is as good as one will get without the HTE program. So hopefully everyone will be happy with the flight dynamics once that bird is out. Then we will be able to go from there.
michael davies
Charter Member 2012
Some weather vaning should be present at speeds above translation, but no more than say 2.5 oscilations before yaw stability is returned. You simply cannot have a large slab sided airframe that does not automatically want to weather vane back to the intended heading, helicopters by their very design nature are one big weather vane, in fairness turns should be carried out like an aircraft, ie roll and pitch with pedlas used to counter side slip, helicopters when at cruise speed behave much like aircraft, except for power ! 
.
Additinally at cruise there should be no or very little torque yaw present, designers go to extrodinary lengths to remove this, from tilting the rotor mast to induce a natural roll to counter torque (Seaking and Hind), tail rotor speeds that match main rotor + a little more to remove the torque input and in the case of the CH-46 a curved rear tail rotor fairing to kick the back out to counter what little torque yaw there is in that twin rotor design. The Seaking also uses a tail boom strake which impinges on the down draft and presents a slight thrust to the left, to counter the tail trying to go right all the time, however that little device from Westland is more prevalent in the hover than at cruise.
However, model a helo with out torque yaw and you'll be shot to pieces, sometimes accuracy is not what people expect, especially in more modern helicopters that have auto controls and devices to counter such forces.
Anyway, enough digression.
Best
Michael
. Additinally at cruise there should be no or very little torque yaw present, designers go to extrodinary lengths to remove this, from tilting the rotor mast to induce a natural roll to counter torque (Seaking and Hind), tail rotor speeds that match main rotor + a little more to remove the torque input and in the case of the CH-46 a curved rear tail rotor fairing to kick the back out to counter what little torque yaw there is in that twin rotor design. The Seaking also uses a tail boom strake which impinges on the down draft and presents a slight thrust to the left, to counter the tail trying to go right all the time, however that little device from Westland is more prevalent in the hover than at cruise.
However, model a helo with out torque yaw and you'll be shot to pieces, sometimes accuracy is not what people expect, especially in more modern helicopters that have auto controls and devices to counter such forces.
Anyway, enough digression.
Best
Michael