Not to step on ADs toes and his dev diary thread which I always look forward to seeing updates on, I updated my dev build with the current map containing the new Herat city layout and a full HOTAS setup. Great work Dave.

From my personal Combat-Helo Dev blog.

The city looks great! I also like that shot:


I am curious on the FM for the Apache. I hope it`s somehow challenging as helicopter flying should be.

Helicopters and challenge of flying is a bit of a broad spectrum. Flying the Apache when it's up to speed (>60kts) has been described as akin to flying a fixed wing aircraft.

You will be able to turn off all the various FMS assists which will really make it challenging but I don't think it will be representative of flying the Apache. The new advanced flight model is still being debugged as we work it into the main source but it is based on one of the more complex helo flight models available for the desktop, two years in the making. It has more forces, effects and parameters than you can shake a stick at. Vibration, RBS, VRS, surface airflow effects, cog shifting and a virtual input system that lets you set your desktop stick to match the throw ratio of the cyclic.

The trim system is as easy as moving the stick to where you want it and relaxing slowly, it quickly becomes natural. No need for a fancy trim setup, you can turn off auto-trim if you prefer the workload.

Equations are derived from books real helicopter engineers use to build helicopters. So it's pretty advanced and adaptable for fixed wing and any other kind of flying vehicle we want to build in future. Supporting co-axial, notar and a variety of engine types. We'll be making a version of the flight physics engine available as middle-ware in 2011.

Hopefully we'll be able to show a flight test in the next few weeks. Still trying to get it ready for a show at the end of the week.

What Flex said. People that seem to think that if a helo sim is hard to fly automatically makes it "realistic" don't really know what they're talking about. Hovering takes some practice in something like an Apache or Blackhawk, but it's by no means death-defying (when all the magic is turned on). Hovering a 206 w/ no AFCS, yeah, that's more of a challenge.

Sounds like Flexman has put a lot of thought into his sim (and yes, I know his history and remember him from years ago, despite my "join date." I look forward to what comes out eventually.

The flight model in Search and Rescue has been called fairly realistic...I'm wondering how this sim will compare with that in terms of flight modeling.

I can only say, wait till you try it. What might be easy for you might be near impossible for others, there will plenty of options to play with.

It will challenge you in different ways, not just flying. But above all, it will (hopefully) be entertaining and different each time you play with the dynamic campaign (with exception to the scripted parts).

I know that you integrate HTR in C-H. I havent had the time yet to fully try it in FSX, though.
What I meant is that some FMs feels like you are on rails. There is no feeling of gravity and forces.

I have no doubt on what you put together... Can`t wait to see the flight test... :-) Good luck with preparing for the Summer sim show.

Ah I see. What's happening is that you're in a chair that doesn't move, no amount of software can fix that

(sorry Eagle I couldn't resist)

While I was having lunch I got to thinking about what you said and thought about games that really made me feel a sense of gravity and being thrown around, in one game to the point of feeling tired (Uncharted 2). They achieved it though audio FX, visual cues and animation. These tricks of cinematography have worked their way into gaming culture and all the better for it, they share similar means of presentation, the screen to impart a sense of kinetic activity.

There's a Dornier Do-27 for FSX by Digital Aviation. This is a *brilliant* add-on aircraft for this reason. From hitting the starter switch the way the whole airframe shakes with the torque from the starter motor and the way the sticks shake, you feel that this is a really old cranky bird with personality. It doesn't take simulation to do that, just animation and good sense on the builders part on how to apply these visual cues.

A case in point, last night I added a simple sin/cosine bob effect to one of our exterior views, suddenly it feels like you're looking at something flying and not a camera glued to the side of a 3D object. Look at the flight-sim videos now that emulate shaky cams to impart a sense of weight, power and speed.

When it comes to helicopter physics and simulations the only cues you typically have are the forces at work and how they move your aircraft. To experience the subtleties of a model you need *really* high frame rates and a close exterior point of reference. Otherwise the detail gets blended away between frames, or worse accumulates into unnatural levels of force countered by player input resulting in a poor experience.

All IMO anyway.

Landing the EF2000 in the game of the same name was a very cool experience...even though there was no force feedback, it was almost like you could feel the expansion joints in the runway...

looking forward to this sim

Hey Flex, I may can`t express exactly what I mean, because my lack of english speaking. I wasn`t talking about the player experience while sitting in the cockpit...at least not at all.

To better express myself I have to put an example on the desk. :-) Look at the whole flight model of the Ka-50 in BS or the Su-25/T in FC. If you start a mission the game put the objects on the map and you can see that they have a MASS. For example while reloading you can see that the center of gravity is changing.
(just as an example, different genres)In all the Arma titles it seems all objects have the same mass if they have one. A 5t truck behave the same like a M1A1 and contrariwise. It seems they weight nothing. The same for all the the a/c and helicopters.


Does HTR take account of the whole object mass?

I may ask for to much in C-H. If you bring back the feel of playing classic sims , that would enough at the beginning... :-)

I see what you mean Eagle, you explained that perfectly.

HTR flight dynamics does take into account different centres of mass and their moments of inertia every update. The pylons on which you hang weapons off effect the whole. Loosing parts of the helicopter will effect performance.

In theory we can add pilots individual weight into the equation, give the AI cp/g a bit of a tummy and have it effect the cog but you probably wouldn't notice in an Apache. Two tons of helicopter with a lot of power.

Fuel weight, tank location, air density and temperature is also taken into account. You should experience performance changes during flight.

Wow, sounds to good to be true. Caaan`t wait!

Does the game Apache trim like the RL one?

One of the things I enjoyed about BS was the realistic implementation of flight controls- helped to have FFB stick, of course- and I hope that Combat Helo will have the same realism at this level.

Yeah. It should by now go without saying, but if you so-called 'hardcore' rotorheads want a 'real' helicopter flying experience, then C-H will likely not be for you - at least at first when only the AH-64D will be available to fly - but even then, all modern U.S. military helicopters share the same flight control principles.

The real AH-64D has probably the most advanced 'flight model' ever, second only to the ill-fated Comanche. A lot of traditional helicopter physics you won't even notice, as almost everything is fed through a digital flight control system and limiters are put on certain aspects so you cannot break things or get into situations beyond your control.

If you want to really fly a helicopter, look for a sim that let's you fly a cheap little Robinson or Schweizer - not a multi-million dollar flying computer.



But in SAR you're flying what, a USCG Dauphin? I've played the SAR2 demo I believe it was, and am aware that you can turn off AFCS but you simply cannot compare that heli to the AH-64D or that sim to C-H. What is 'realistic' anyhow? As gatordev stated, what is hard to fly and feels realistic isn't always actually realistic.

This situaton is exactly the same when I was flamed in the DCS forum here for saying that in many respects (note that I do state 'in many respects', and not all) DCS: BS wasn't in fact more complex than LB2 but simply because it was supposed to be realistically modelling the Ka-50, which to start with and in real-life is more complex that the AH-64D on the face of it (note that I say on the 'face of it', and not in actual fact), because it has more buttons, more dials and more gauges.

This is also one of the reasons why many 'hardcore' rotorheads totally dismiss Comanche Gold. Because there's not 200 buttons to push or 30 dials to keep checking every 30 seconds, it must be arcade-y. More buttons, more complex and harder doesn't always equate to more realism... please bear that in mind.

To me, it's more important how a helicopter "flys", not "handles". As Flyboy said, you get into a small, simple helicopter like a Robinson, it'll be a bit of a handful because it doesn't have the advanced flight computers of an aircraft like the Apache. The flight computers make a helicopter HANDLE better, i.e. more stable or responsive.

One example of a common misconception of rotary-winged flight is that to climb in a helicopter, the ONLY way to do it is pull more collective. This leads to some simulations as old as "Gunship 2000" to the newest iteration of "Apache: Air Assault" keeping the helicopter at roughly the same altitude when the nose is put above the horizon. The chopper loses airspeed but doesn't climb. As most helo-simmers undoubtedly know, as well as real-world pilots, helicopters will climb relatively like an airplane when the nose is put above the horizon without a reduction in collective. I know it's not a dedicated flight sim, but ARMA2 is the best example of this. (To be fair, proper technique IS to climb a helicopter with collective, while maintaining attitude with the cyclic, for the purpose of maintaining airspeed. However, in a combat sim, where combat maneuvers are required in all three dimensions simultaneously, the need to have a fully acrobatic aircraft is desired and required.)

There were many aspects of flight dynamics that were missing from "Apache: Air Assault", but were in games like LB2 or "Apache Longbow"; which were from the 90's for crying out loud! I don't understand how most (not all, obviously) flight sim developers still don't "get" helicopters. If Jane's could do it in the 90's, why couldn't Activision do it in 2009? I'm not hating on Activision, or singing Jane's praises, those are just the examples I'm using. It was just frustrating how much I was moving the collective up and down throughout combat maneuvers in A:AA. In reality, many combat maneuvers can be accomplished with little to no collective manipulation.

Ok, off rant, lol I hope I didn't cause anyone's eyes to glaze over, cuz my post is fairly irrelevant, just getting frustration off my chest.

There's nothing irrelevant about your post, and the frustration is understandable.

The technology we use nowadays to develop flight sims creates as much work as it eliminates. There's a lot of unlocked potential with modern engines and so many more ways to complete tasks but there's a much larger glass to fill. Budget's are smaller and publishers like flashy graphics. It's far more profitable to assign programmers to spend time programming effects than detailed flight models. Ace Combat is the perfect example of that development model. Cinematics, flashbang, cinematics, flashbang, cheesy audio, flashbang, cinematics. It's a mirror image of modern action movies. Atleast Die Hard had some substance.

Cheers

To be honest, Acecombat is more an orthodox one, compared to other arcade flight game because you can atleast roll a plane and go invert in the game lol...sigh

Interview on Acecombat:AssaultHorizon has proven that even making conventional acecombat series is by no means in a safe place as they have said in the interview that they were told "do we need next acecombat?" by their publisher.
They were told to make something new, of course which is not leaned to a simulation but more flashy cinematic thing that is.

Now, I doubt you can do "the roll n invert" in the next one.

Some good points. Even with digital (or analog) AFCS computers, the helo still has some helo-specific "issues" you have to deal with, but the AFCS does make it "handle" more smoothly/consistently. One prime example is banking/turning. Sitting on the ground, I get the two confused, but in the helo, I know which way to move the collective, but... When banking one way (I think it's left w/ a counter-rotating disc) requires more collective and banking the other (right?) requires less collective, all to maintain altitude while holding airspeed.

And the use of cyclic climb is definitely a "normal" procedure. Often times you just don't have the power to get a good climb in at an airspeed, so cyclic climb it is. Plus it can just be fun.

Just today I was giving my buddy his NATOPS check (basically an annual standardization check). After we finished, we still had another 2 hours to kill so we dicked around N. Florida trying to not to get bored (yes, we did actually do other training, but it's not all "work"). At one point I came up on a freeway/highway intersection and had to make a right 90 degree turn. I could have just banked and turned, but it's far more entertaining to pitch up and bank, then pitch over (sounds less fluid than it is) to make the turn, plus it decreased my radius of turn. Good stuff. But then I've always been a fan of energy conservation in flight. It demands much more finesse than just adding raw power to the equation.

The effect you're referring to is "transient torque". When banking left at high speed and near maximum torque, a slight reduction in collective is required to keep from overtorquing the aircraft. Due to the aerodynamics over the rotor disk, torque will increase depending on amount of left cyclic applied (counter-clockwise rotation), and how aggressively you apply it. The opposite is true for a right bank. To maintain torque, you will need to increase collective slightly while applying right cyclic. The amount of transient torque is affected by airspeed, amount of cyclic application, and rate of cyclic application.

The trick I was always taught was imagine a string attached between the cyclic and collective. "As you apply right cyclic, it pulls the collective up, and as you apply left cyclic, it allows the collective to drop". Of course, this only works with counter-clockwise rotating rotor systems, which pretty much all American helicopters are, I believe.

Yeah, I agree with you Gatordev, pitch-back turns are definitely one of the more exciting maneuvers to perform in a helicopter. You can't fly straight in level ALL the time, lol.

For all those with some free time on their hands, please refer to this short manual that will hit on some basic points behind what everyone seems to be asking about. This is an unclassified document and is cleared for public/foreign national release. Its only 28 page. So pull up a chair, throw on the kettle, and enjoy. Flex, if you want to tweak the flight model, this is your source.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sourc...UkgcYHocSrPIZyw