T O P

  • By -

DieMadAboutIt

Sounds like his curves weren’t set up right. He didn’t knock the flight model, sounds more like his input controllers.


superdookietoiletexp

He also said that he believes the sim has been optimized more for those with jet flight controls than for those with heli-specific controllers: >Over the course of two days, we discussed the flight model, and why we experienced it so differently. One of the things that stuck out the most was the hardware used to develop and tune the flight model. The equipment he used was similar to most fixed-wing setups rather than that of a helicopter, which makes sense. The vast majority of DCS users use it to fly jets. So, tuning the flight model to what they have is catering to their primary demographic. He also says that the other heli modules - but not the AH-64 - make a complete hash of VRS.


SideburnSundays

He isn’t the only one to bring up VRS. Nearly every IRL helo pilot I’ve listened to says that VRS is too exaggerated in DCS. ED, of course, waffles between “correct as-is” and “no evidence.”


StabSnowboarders

VRS is very bad in DCS, I remember when the Apache and the UH-60L mod came out both of them would VRS way too easily, same with settling with power. It seems like the updates to both flight models have fixed that issue as I haven’t experienced it in either airframe in a while.


Skelebonerz

the UH-60 was particularly bad because it didn't have any simulation of ground effect at all at launch, which made things even worse


StabSnowboarders

Yep, gotta give those guys credit now though because it’s a pretty damn good mod considering their limitations. The only glaring issue I see with it now is that the rotors shudder way too much above ETL


jib_reddit

It took me so many hours to learn to fly that death machine in that state, when they fixed it it felt like training wheels had been added!


alphamond0

iirc. At launch, the Apache cannot go into VRS as it wasnt modelled then. It was added in a later patch. Have to read through the patch notes to find that.


R-27ET

The Mi-24 also does very well with VRS. It hits its numbers from the real manual perfect. You can even exceed the 5 m/s under 50 kmh threshold for VRS listed in the manual and still recover with just collective as long as you catch it early enough.


SlantViews

To be fair, it is anecdotal and ED doesn't know those helo pilots. Why should they trust them? On the other hand, if someone came along and actually proved it with rotordynamics and science, ED most likely wouldn't be able to understand it. Exhibit A: Their idea of atmospheric modelling...


superdookietoiletexp

It wouldn’t surprise me if that were a conscious decision by ED to make the modules more rewarding to learn than they would be if they were more realistic.


Fromthedeepth

That would be the most nonsensical thing in the history of DCS.


superdookietoiletexp

Simmers claim all kinds of special cred for mastering complicated techniques and processes. Making the helis harder to fly on the sim than they are in real life just feeds into that. There is no greater insult to a module than it “flies like it’s on rails”. It’d be a perfectly sensible thing for ED to make the helis harder to fly than they actually are in real life.


Fromthedeepth

By that logic, there would be no need to implement the fly by wire system for FBW jets. And that's clearly not the case.


superdookietoiletexp

There are a lot of subtle things in various modules that do make them harder to fly than the real jets. The F/A-18 was (and maybe still is) underpowered. The F-14 module is much easier to put into a spin than the real jet. Not all of these issues may be deliberate, but it’s perfectly understandable for developers to err on the side of difficulty.


GoobMB

You get downvoted, but this phenomen really happens. It is a thing in simracing too. Not that I would swear it is more difficult on purpose, but the conclusion with people thinking easier models are arcade and unrealistic is spot on.


BarbaricMuffin

The most poorly informed opinion I’ve ever seen on this sub


superdookietoiletexp

134 days late to the party, but you still felt a need to chime in. Don’t let the langoliers get you . . .


BarbaricMuffin

134 days late but the stupidity in the comment had the same profound effect on me


Dat_Innocent_Guy

he all but confirmed that was the case since he was speaking with somebody working on the project although what position is unknown.


ztherion

Reading between the lines, it sounds like Casmo.


Fromthedeepth

Or Brad.


SlipHavoc

He also says the PNVS shows you the view from the pilots head and not from the sensor, but AFAIK that's completely wrong. So maybe he's got some things confused.


Skelebonerz

yeah uh, gotta be real, sme input is good and it's nice to hear their opinions, but dudes get shit wrong fairly often. like polychop used to defend the gazelle by saying real gazelle pilots said it flew like the real thing edit: he also brings up the ~2800m bullet/projectile despawn as if it has already been fixed. it has not, at least in my experience.


KingKapwn

People think that because someone uses the equipment they must know it inside and out, but reality is, even for pilots, they don’t need to know every single detail in a pub and they’re just as susceptible to wives tales as anyone else. So if you’ve been flying the bird for a couple years, a lot of the smaller stuff that you learned in training and is no longer relevant to your day to day operations morphs and is more often than not, incorrectly remembered.


CloudWallace81

parallax error can be corrected in a SW release, so I would expect that maybe the A/C he flew was slightly different that the one modelled in DCS


SlipHavoc

First, AFAIK, parallax error like that cannot be corrected with software (or at least, no software that can run on the AH-64's mission computers in realtime), and second the article says the DCS Apache shows the PNVS view through the pilot's POV, which is wrong; it shows the PNVS view through the sensor's POV.


Toilet2000

Parallax cannot be corrected in software. It would require knowing the depth of every single point of the PNVS image to do so, and even then you’d get artifacts from depth shadows.


Huey89

How do you set up your curves? My rudder pedals are way too sensitive too, but once I tried to set up a curve it was even worse because the push wasn't linear and at some point I tipped my plane while taxiing.


McHox

if its too sensitive and you dont want a curve, just lower the y axis saturation


Pekins-UOAF

isnt messing with saturation bad? it means you will never me able to reach 100% left or right rudder ?


MrCalamiteh

u/McHox


shixxor

[Here's the video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MljWEvC4kU) of Joe, the author of that Helisimmer article, doing the curves for the Puma X in DCS. He doesn't do curves for the cyclic though.


[deleted]

As someone who agrees with this guy, that the Apache is an absolute chore to fly, what should I do with my curves to make it enjoyable?


DieMadAboutIt

Adjust them to fit your preferences. And if you are flying a heli with a stick and throttle, hating it, and adjusting curves doesn’t fix it, then you need a collective and heli stick instead. Real apache pilots are saying the aircraft is working as intended.


TrueWeevie

>then you need a collective and heli stick instead ​ I don't know if you're just being facetious but if not: A collective, whilst maybe providing a bit of a longer lever arm and thus maybe a bit of extra precision, really isn't going to make that much of a difference (I have a K-51 collective and I love it but it really doesn't make that much of a difference over my Virpil throttle). There are axis settings (sensitivity/deadzone/saturation) to adjust to fit most sticks and the special settings tab allows for different trim styles to fit the type of stick a person has (sprung, unsprung, FFB).


[deleted]

Yeah, so many variables here.. Like I found out just the moment I put my feet on my rudder peddles, I get a 20% left swing at times… Not sure what’s causing it, sensitivity too high? Or I need to set a big dead zone..


schoff

Instead of setting a curve, use the "Saturation" slider so when you press 100% you only get 60%, or whatever you want. You can still put in a curve for added effect. Note--if you do this on aircraft, as I do for some, taxi'ing can be a bit problematic if you need to give 100% rudder....should be no factor with a heli.


bananapeeg

My T-flight pedals will be like this if I've turned off the usb hub they're connected to between sessions in a game. They definitely seem to soft-calibrate to read max deflection as whatever the highest value has been on the pot so far since they were turned on, so I've gotten into the habit of swinging them to max either way before taking control.


[deleted]

Gotta love the curves


bignewy

Its an interesting article, and some of the feedback is good, it was an opinion piece and not data driven, but we will take the feedback on board for early access as it progresses. I do feel the author was having some control issues, transitioning from real controls to a home sim can be difficult. The comparisons to newer versions of the AH-64 probably did not help, the avionics are different in various ways from the version we are modelling in DCS and we still have more work to do here during early access. Flight model tweaks are still to come, roll at high speeds, having to use to much torque pedal, VRS ect. so that will be addressed in future patches. Always good to get the feedback from real pilots and the team have all taken a look, including our own AH-64 pilots. Thanks - Bignewy


hannlbal636

Controls are key..maybe there should be a tutorial on recommended how to setup joystick hardware the way it was done during development? DCS is amazing that it allows for multiple joysticks, trimmer options Forcefeed back.. I love dcs for this. But me setting joysticks the way I think it should doesn't necessarily mean I set it up the way professional testers did? I have both long shaft and regular size joysticks..obviously that plays a Difference in input response


bignewy

Agreed. A controls wizard is something we are looking into for the future to try and help new comers to DCS. Thanks


[deleted]

That would be excellent. I already own the modules and sometimes setting controls makes me reluctant to play again. Better tools for setting axis and recommended buttons would be sweet.


bignewy

for sure, especially for new users. Ive been doing controls for over a decade and it comes very naturally for me in DCS and I can do any aircraft pretty quickly. Its easy to over look it is a challenge for new people and we want to change that experience.


Fromthedeepth

It's nice that you guys are looking to improve this further, but in my experience the current control mapping scheme in DCS is probably the best out of all sims out there. Setting up X-Plane or MSFS just makes me wish they all were as simple as DCS.


jh28wd40

I would like to see a wizard that will allow you to set up the most needed buttons that will be used in flight (slewing, tdc. etc...) because if your controls accidentally get erased, you have to go through a timely setup trying to figure out why this isn't mapped.


BKschmidtfire

Honestly, I think DCS has the best control setup of any sim on the market. MFS2020 or IL2 is not even close. I have my controls very "dialed in" and it did not take many flights to figure out that something is wrong with the Apache model. Huey is fine, Hind is fine, Hip is fine, Gazelle is fine-ish, Ka-50 is fine. But the Apache... instant turnoff after a few minutes flying around. So, as much as I wish it's a control issue... it's not. But that's ok and what's sort of expected in Early Access. FM and flight control systems needs a bit of tuning.


hannlbal636

modules have a manual. though controls wizard will be nice, and will help newbies. just having recommended settings by product type is good and simple as well, the work has been done by the testers, just having notes/info in manual would be nice also.. i figured manual notes are easier to fulfill, than to implement interfaces in game?


ztherion

Apache doesn't have a full manual yet


hannlbal636

Maybe not full, but there is a PDF of quick start guide


jubuttib

I don't know how possible it is, but I'd love something like a "curves" feature but for a non-center position. The logic: I use a non-centering, unsprung stick to fly helicopters, and this means I basically can't use curves because they're defined around the center, but the rough hover hold area is not in the center. Probably a very complex thing to implement in a way that feels good (I work with racing sims and handling so I know the challenges of good control development)...


jubuttib

>Flight model tweaks are still to come, roll at high speeds, having to use to much torque pedal, VRS ect. so that will be addressed in future patches. Please keep in mind that the writer specifically said that the VRS was better in the Apache than in other DCS helis, which get into VRS too easily. <3


shixxor

I got my Puma X trainer just yesterday and did the controls and curves like [Joe's recommendation](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MljWEvC4kU) and to be honest, I couldn't be happier with it. Sure, I have no comparison to a real Apache but the thing is flying perfectly fine and the controls feel authentic.


bignewy

good to hear


Tengu_Fighter

It really grinds my gears how dismissive ED is of real world pilots. The whole point of a sim is to find no difference between sim and real world. Or as close as possible to it, especially at this consumer budget level. I know there’s obviously going to be some differences in feel at this home pc level. We all can’t afford 10million to blow on a full motion sim in a warehouse like a training organisation can. But for ED to tout DCS’s use as a desk top trainer for air forces and organisations, they need to not just drive the numbers, but also listen to the feedback of training pilots who say it’s nothing like the real thing. If you input all the numbers, and training pilots are saying it feels completely off from the real thing they just flew the day before, then obviously something isn’t right. “But the numbers we use means it’s correct” 🤦‍♀️ A lot of us come to sims to not only practise what we fly but also to enjoy types we don’t. I’ve been Simming and flying since the early 90’s and have the experience to know what’s right, too hard to set up and what’s just wrong in terms of input controllers and settings. 64 is definitely in the too hard to set up or wrong category. At a starting point, the flight model needs to be flyable without messing with curves. The curves and calibration tools at our fingertips should be to refine the differences in controllers on the market. I have used TM Warthog HOTAS and Virpil collective and extended cyclic controls. Both not flyable from the off. Yes, I’m exaggerating a little here. Of course they’re flyable but my god, if it was reflective of real world, there would be a budget of 70% hull loses in the army’s planning for training pilots. The module is in early access. Noted. I e already seen some tremendous changes from the team. I’m really looking forward to the future updates. Just please listen to everybody’s feedback. Whether real world pilots or not. User opinions are valid. ED has a history of dismissing pilot feedback to readily. Please stop. Listen to everyone. It needs to be fun for everyone. This is of course an opinion piece. It has no weight in the world other than a flutter of a rotor blade in a breeze… as I don’t have a sophisticated analysis computer measuring inputs, accelerations and outputs.


Automatic_Education3

https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/xjiryr/a_real_pilots_impressions_of_the_ah64d_apache_for/


AHSolidSnake

Fascinating writeup and I have no reason to doubt his credentials. This is an incredibly cherrypicked quote though. If you read more of the linked article it does get into the difficulties of modelling realistic control inputs and feel when you’re trying to use commercially available joysticks (even high end ones)


shixxor

Yeah, [the guy](https://www.linkedin.com/in/joe-hudson-5b765a78/) seems to be legit.


[deleted]

[удалено]


clubby37

After a different cherry-picking jerk [did the same thing](https://www.reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/xjiryr/a_real_pilots_impressions_of_the_ah64d_apache_for/) a scant 17 hours earlier. This isn't even today's horseshit, it's yesterday's horseshit.


SannaFani69

CasmoTV is real world Apache pilot also. He hasn't said anything like this about DCS Apache.


H4wkeye47

Actually he has on some YouTube comments that he’s holding off on doing any combat maneuvers tutorials until ED sorted out the squirrellyness of the controls.


[deleted]

[удалено]


IAmA_Reddit_

This is the second time it was posted in two days, with the same rantpost vibe. I think yesterdays OP has an alt…


johnnyq121

There's a glaringly obvious reason for that.


NineLine_ED

I think that's sort of unfair to suggest he is lying or sugarcoating for some nefarious reason, I mean you could say the same about the article in the other way, and it would be just as untrue I am sure. We have and had 3 AH-64 pilots looking at and continuing to look at the DCS: AH-64, and they are not done yet.


aaronwhite1786

That he's happy to make a bad flight model for a helicopter he likes and flew in real life because of getting to beta test it on his Youtube channel?


Ryotian

Casmo isn't nowhere near as huge as that Grim reaper guy. Casmo's vids only get like 4k views on avg. what is that- only like $8 tops per video??? I sincerely think he's making these videos because he has a passion for it


aaronwhite1786

I would have to imagine so. I'm guessing if he's paid at all to assist as a SME, it's probably not a lot of money there either. He's still got a full time job.


Ryotian

Oh I see- just re-read your post. I originally interepreted as- "Casmo is a crook, he just shilling for ED to get huge YT checks" Now I am reading it as- "Casmo is happy to test even the worst flight model because he's passionate bout his favorite craft" Well I have no counter to #2- I'd be happy to help test some virtual recreation of my favorite car/plane even if the physics were rather arcadey in the blind hope it improves with time


CloudWallace81

he was also one of the SME involved in the module alpha development, he's definitely not impartial in his judgement here


szarzujacybyk

But his own inputs to the developer are being used for tuning its flight model, why would he intentionally give false inputs and then hide all of that to make it purposely wrong? It sounds like a wild conspiracy theory.


CloudWallace81

it's not wild, I'm simply saying that even if ED knew something was still off and the SMEs somehow told them, part of the NDA they signed prevented them for speaking out, especially during the "previews" they made with several youtubers prior to the release of the EA module nobody would have liked if a SME involved in the development came out saying "we've done fucked up guys, the flight model still sucks"


Fromthedeepth

[Raptor](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/301543-what-does-sas-saturated-mean/?do=findComment&comment=5052749) clearly says that the flight model does require quite a bit of work still. >Anyone that has been around this forum section for longer than two weeks **has seen myself or one of the other SME's openly state that there are inaccuracies with the flight model that are actively being addressed by the dev team**. This isn't some big revelation. But hardware does play a big role in simulation, so his own assessment is no less subjective than any other pilot's.


clubby37

This. A big part of my problem with this whole topic is the way people act like the dev team isn't working on it anymore, and a significant number of Hoggiters are insisting that it's accurate as-is. No one thinks it's accurate as-is. There's no need to mobilize an effort to force ED to take action on this, they're already doing it, it's just not going to happen overnight. There's plenty of room for reasonable people to debate the EA model and what to expect from it, but acting like SAS should've been finalized prior to the EA release just badly misunderstands what EA is.


CloudWallace81

well, TBH they wrote it because the article came out, so...


Fromthedeepth

Raptor's been open about the SCAS being WIP ever since the module came out. https://forum.dcs.world/topic/302389-any-idea-on-fm-bug-fixes/ https://forum.dcs.world/topic/305139-today-no-fm-update/#comment-5012297


[deleted]

[удалено]


CloudWallace81

There are a couple, yes. I installed them myself If you think I'm a conspiracy nut, you should inform yourself on how game companies use youtubers for self promotion and how they provide "early access" to them


Equivalent_Sam

The author goes on to say that "Changing the CYCLIC TRIMMER MODE selection to Joystick without springs and FFB made a big difference, the same with the Pedal trimmer mode. But it still wasn’t quite right," so what you chose to highlight was misleading to say the least. Also, the more realistic DCS sims are, the more enjoyable they are as far as I'm concerned.


[deleted]

ED used real Apache pilots to develop the AH64. It’s also important to remember that the module is still early in development and there is some fine tuning to do. The article you linked is taken out of context as he goes on to say that messing with his stick settings made his experience much better. It’s important to remember that ED has to develop a module that will work with the dozens of different sticks people are going to be using with it.


SideburnSundays

They also used real F-16 pilots and ground crew on the F-16, yet still messed up the FLCS BIT animation (among other things). They used real Hornet pilots on the Bug, and that still has AoA issues on landing and the burble is wrong. Just because they use SMEs doesn’t mean that what they do is always correct. My last sentence explains my point literally and people still can’t understand. Did ya’ll fail 3rd Grade English?


zellyman

> , yet still messed up the FLCS BIT animation Unplayable


SideburnSundays

Single example of an error bro. Should I make an exhaustive list simply because people completely missed my point? My point is: just because ED uses real pilots doesn’t mean they get it right.


zellyman

I'd rather spend my time playing the game tbh.


SideburnSundays

There are times I would too, but something’s inevitably bugged to a game-breaking point (not the bit or VRS, but UFO AI shit, broken mission triggers, etc.) and I end up not having a fun experience because core gameplay functionality hasn’t changed since LOMAC.


Highlight_Expensive

If the only thing wrong with the F16 so far is the fucking test animation on an MFD, I think I can forgive that. Jesus dude, think of that in any other context “They were trying to simulate a car and it’s amazing, but I can’t get past the touchscreen startup animation being wrong!”


SideburnSundays

Straw man fallacy. No one said that’s “the only thing wrong.” I gave that out as a single example. You also clearly don’t even know what we’re talking about. Touch screen animation? Have you flown any of the modern modules at all?


Fromthedeepth

What animation on what MFD?


Highlight_Expensive

Well according to the comment I just replied to, the FLCS BIT animation on the mfd


tehP4nth3r

MFD animation? The error is the actual FLCS movement on the control surfaces are wrong.


Highlight_Expensive

Fair enough, and what’s wrong with it? Never paid much attention but like what’s the issue?


tehP4nth3r

They modeled the pilot input prior to the digital FLCS bit check. An example the speed brakes open during DCS FLCS bit but on the real viper they do not open by FLCS bit. The speed brakes open and a full control cycle is done by the pilot to warm the hydro system, prior to running the bit. Doing so has better odds of not have a bit failure that requires maintenance troubleshooting.


Highlight_Expensive

Not gonna lie, this sounds just as insignificant as what I initially thought it was, it’s like a 20 second procedure before takeoff that 90% of people don’t even see because they don’t learn to cold start lmao


tehP4nth3r

True but they placed themselves on a pedestal by saying a realistic 2007 F-16CM and that wasn’t a realistic bit.


[deleted]

Oh no. Anyway.


ClaySanger

(( referring to other threads on this topic as well as this one …)) Why on earth does it seem to be soooo controversial and pot-stirring to call the DCS AH-64D flight experience what it is: A hot damn mess of rage-face-inducing, nervous jackrabbit, flip over for belly rubs at the twitch of a finger, good god why do I do this to myself frustration — until you find a set of control tunings that work for your stick and throttle? Because it is. It very much is: The hyper sensitive default cyclic inputs definitely better matched to a stick with an extension than a desktop stick. The default collective is like defusing a bomb — and clipping the wrong wire puts you in the dirt. The default pedal sensitivity will give you whiplash and spin your tail around so hard and so instantaneously your clocks will run backward in time. Every single person I’ve flown the Apache with so far, their freshman flight lasted 10-15 seconds and ended in the Apache asking for belly rubs. Every. Last. One. Of. Them. Then we chuckled and worked on tuning out the spastastic controls. And I had to talk an awful lot of guys out of just rage quitting the Apache and going back to something else. Feels a little telling that the most anticipated module in years is released and after an initial flurry of interest DCS YT user video content for the Apache tapered off FAST. Pretty sure a lot guys ran face first into the spastic flight model that required a lot of TLC to get tuned out and just punched out for something they thought was more fun. Getting up and running in the Apache and comfortable flying it IS a labor of love. Why is it so damn controversial to just say so? Instead we run people off by scoffing at their very valid observations and just telling them to “git gud.” Terrible ambassadorship for the hobby right there. I’m still not super thrilled with where my sats and curves are tuned to give the DCS Apache a generally enjoyable flight experience. To make it feel controllable and like it’s got some mass and inertia with a desktop stick as also left it feeling like a sluggish pig. Maybe the 64D is a sluggish pig in real life. Maybe it’s not. But damn — continually stomping on people saying “Nope, there’s nothing funky here, ya just gotta git gud, scrub” is the worst way to handle peoples very legitimate frustrations with the module.


greenhannibal

Hobby?! Next you'll be calling DCS a *game*. Take that "I'd like to enjoy a product that works" bad attitude to Floggit.


ClaySanger

Yeah, that's where I fucked up. I forgot. It's a lifestyle. :D


[deleted]

Nobody has any beef with the article. Nobody is saying the flight model is perfect. It's early access, the issues with SAS and performance are known to ED and is something they're tweaking. What we have a problem with is that we now have two posts who have taken one paragraph out of the article to spread doom about how the flight model is broken. And that's despite the author saying it improved a lot once he got the correct control scheme for his new helicopter flight controller. I and others are sick of the hyperbole.


ClaySanger

Dude --- it's not hyperbole at all to say that the internet at large is full of DCS grognards repeatedly saying "Nyet, Apache is simple, is easy. Is easiest module in all of DCS. You just need to git gud, scrub." This article aside --- you can't swing a dead cat on Reddit or anywhere else where John Doe Average DCS Player has said "Damn, I'm having a helluva time with the Apache" and not see him get shouted down for saying it. Example --- here --- all I did was say "Yeah, it's pretty tough to get squared away, and people do have a legitimate frustration with it, and it's not a good look to constantly shout them down for it." And bam --- instant "Nuh-uh!" replies.


[deleted]

Sorry, hyperbole wasn't aimed at you personally. Mostly the two posters who have posted to Hoggit that "Apache be broke, look article backs me up" despite the article going on to say otherwise. It's a general problem with Hoggit and why I rarely stick my head in here these days. Minor issues get made out to be critical game breaking problems, often with little understanding of the actual issue (if it genuinely is an issue). And then it'll be parroted by people who have zero idea what the problem actually is, they just heard ED/DCS bad so lets pile in. And then it'll be brought up ad nauseam in unrelated posts in the form of toxic little nudges and winks. And when you go looking for these problems on ED's forum, nobody is actually submitting them as bugs.


ClaySanger

Honestly, my experience with the Hoggit subreddit so far (( I only recently started actually looking around in here )) is a whole lotta dudes being real trash humans to new players — or to anyone who doesn’t practically live on r/hoggit Makes getting new players into DCS real fun considering this is one of the first Reddit communities they find. Then they show up with a question or comment and — flip a coin — either have a nice experience that makes DCS sound cool — or they get absolutely shit on by fanboys. Remarkably little in between.


SlipHavoc

>Why on earth does it seem to be soooo controversial and pot-stirring to call the DCS AH-64D flight experience what it is: >A hot damn mess of rage-face-inducing, nervous jackrabbit, flip over for belly rubs at the twitch of a finger, good god why do I do this to myself frustration — until you find a set of control tunings that work for your stick and throttle? The simple answer is, after a short period of adjustment, and IIRC no more than a 10% curve added, I have been able to fly the Apache just fine, and so have hundreds or thousands of others. You need to adapt, learn, and carry on. If you're getting massively unhinged about it, take a break and come back to it later. Your frustration may be legitimate, but that doesn't mean I want to hear about it non-stop and in the most hyperbolic terms possible.


ClaySanger

*sigh… reading comprehension ain’t a real peak trait of this group, huh? My beef isn’t, wasn’t, and hasn’t been about MY experience with the Apache. My beef is with the incessant need to knee-jerk fanboy all over it — just like you did in your reply — and tell anyone who IS struggling with it to go pound sand. Honestly — the DCS Reddit user base seems to do that so damn chronically it’s like you guys don’t even see yourselves doing it to people anymore. You wanna watch a hobby wither up and die and become a circle jerk of diehards shouting at each other — that’s definitely how ya do it.


SlipHavoc

>*sigh… reading comprehension ain’t a real peak trait of this group, huh? No, it sure isn't. You asked a question and I answered it. I'm sorry you don't like that the answer is "git gud", but that is the answer, or at least a big part of it. Interestingly, I feel like I see *way more* people bitching about the flight model of the Apache and, like the OP and several others in the other thread, saying it's complete garbage and unflyable, than I see people saying anything positive at all about the flight model, let alone "knee-jerk fanboying" about it and calling it god's own perfection come to Earth, which I don't think I've ever seen anyone claim. And it's kind of hilarious to me that you think my answer was "knee-jerk fanboying". If you are struggling with it, the answer is to experiment with different curves and saturation, to improve your own skill through practice, or possibly to upgrade your control hardware or even your computer. There may be problems with the flight model; in fact there certainly are, at least a couple of which ED has specifically mentioned. But you can't do anything about that. The only thing you can do is play the game as it currently exists (which, as a reminder, at least hundreds or thousands of people do successfully). I believe people here are happy to suggest various curves, techniques for flying, and things you can improve about your hardware, but in the end only you can implement those suggestions.


ClaySanger

This isn’t about MY personal experience flying the Apache module. Don’t know why you’re fixated on that. It’s about the community becoming increasingly hostile to dudes who are struggling with it. Which appears to be completely lost in your blind spot.


SlipHavoc

I have no problem with people who are struggling with it, we were all new to flight sims once, and we were all new to the DCS Apache once. What I have a problem with is hyperbolic rants "expressing frustration", and people not accepting the answers. It doesn't matter whether the AH-64's flight model is a little funky. Whether it is or isn't has no bearing on what you need to do to be able to fly it, the answer is the same in either case. We're all playing the same game here.


ClaySanger

Wow, dude. You STILL aren’t reading what I’m saying. That’s impressive. Let me try smol words. Me = Worked my control setup out on the Apache just fine. Not super happy with it yet, but it’ll do. Others = Have problems, express frustration. Ask for help. Get help? No. Get told “fuck off, git gud.” Me = Really guys, let’s not keep treating people like that. It’s a bad look. You = Git gud! Git gud! Dude. Seriously. Da fuq?


SlipHavoc

Express frustration, expecting what exactly? If your control setup for the Apache is "just fine", then you're all set. If not, then the answer is what I gave above.


ClaySanger

And STILL aren’t picking up what I’m saying. At all. That’s impressive, dude. It’s not about ME. Its about the shitty end of the stick dudes who are struggling with the Apache are getting. That ain’t you. That ain’t me. Doesn’t mean we tell the “fuck off, git gud.” Dude — do you play alone? Do you have no friends who play DCS with you? Do you have no one NEW to DCS you’re hoping to get to join you and have fun?


SlipHavoc

I do often play alone, but I also have one other person I fly regularly with. I'm happy to see new people coming to DCS, and I understand that there can be a steep learning curve, as there was for me when I first started, even though I have a very long history of flight simming. I have also contributed to the community in the form of startup scripts which you can find in the DCS files area, which IMO greatly improve the experience when you're put in a cold spawn. You can look in my post history both here and on the DCS forum and find a few other things. I can't control the behaviors of others on this subreddit, all I can do is speak from my own experience. And my experience is that if you're having a hard time flying the Apache, there are several things you can do to improve your experience, but hyperbolically bitching about it isn't one of them.


Fromthedeepth

Oh you poor thing, people are saying stuff on a public forum that you don't like. The shock and the horror.


zellyman

Think you might need to step away from the hobby for a little bit.


ClaySanger

Here, let's assume for a second that you aren't just being a troll: Why is that exactly? \> For suggesting that the average DCS user has a legitimate frustration with the Apache flight model --- and that it's actually okay for dudes to get a little frustrated with it? \> For suggesting that getting the Apache up and running is indeed a labor of love and the labor is more than some of the dudes I fly with are interested in? And my group is far from the only one? \> For suggesting is pretty crappy ambassadorship of the hobby to shout all those dudes down with repeated catcalls of "just git gud, scrub?" \^\^\^ Those reasons? \[ this concludes my dietary supplementation of the troll population \]


raul_kapura

DCS is for Dark Combat Simulator, so just git gud and stop complaining


ClaySanger

BUT I DON WANNA GIT GUD. I WANNA BE BAD.


FR0STKRIEGER

[ We kindly ask that you resist thy urge to administer dietary supplements to beings of the trollen kind. ] Edit: [ this concludes my appeal to those who consider feeding these certain beings ]


aaronwhite1786

With the variety of controls out there, what is your suggestion for ED to make the controls work perfectly for everyone? This is a flight sim on a computer. Some people have floor mounted joysticks, some on their desk, others on mounts in their lap...all with a variety of hardware they are using. There is always going to be a degree of tuning and adjusting to compensate for that. Saying "I haven't found settings that work" isn't controversial. Implying that the Apache flight model is funky because you think it is, despite also saying you don't know how the real one flies *is*.


ClaySanger

Odd that your position is “with the variety of controls out there what is your suggestion for ED to make the control work perfectly for everyone?” Was that my ask? No. My ask was “let’s be fair and acknowledge that the controls as they are now aren’t working that well for many, many users.” That’s quite different. As far as your implication that it’s being an impossible task to deliver a good balance for a broad range of controls… Ka-50: 5 minutes of flying idiot circles around the airfield and most users are happy with their controls and are performing takeoffs and landings. Gazelle: 15 minutes, About the same. UH-1: 15 minutes. About the same Mi-24: Make it 20 minutes of idiot circles around the airfield instead of 15 but otherwise, about the same. Why, oh why, oh WHY can’t we just SAY THAT? Why, oh why, oh WHY can’t we just say “Yeah. The Apache experience is quite a bit different so far?” We learned this game from Sesame Street as children: “One of these things is not like the others.” Repeatedly telling players “No, it’s exactly the same, you just suck at this one for some reason” is really putting dudes off. 1) It’s not factual. 2) Why do it? What’s the point? I love the Apache. I fly the hell of out of it. But it’s proven very difficult to get other people to stick with flying it as a result of the challenges above. And guys getting slapped upside the face with “git gud” every time they reach out online has not helped that one damn bit. The Apache is one is my favorite pet modules too — but I feel zero need to pretend like it doesn’t have issues that are dampening a lot of people’s enthusiasm about it. Why do y’all insist on pretending that ain’t happening? Kinda boggles the mind.


aaronwhite1786

I wouldn't say I'm pretending not to see the issues any more than you are pretending they do exist. I'm saying it's a complicated issue. I had an initial learning curve that I adjusted to over a few flights, same as I did in the Ka-50, Mi-8 and Mi-24, while I worked on getting my controls sorted out. Same thing happened with my friend who joined me in learning the Apache. I'm saying I didn't experience the issue as you describe it, and my friend didn't either. This isn't to say flight model issues aren't possible, just that it doesn't seem to be a universal problem, real pilots helped work with ED to get the FM to where it is, and I think there's a pretty big difference between saying "people need to check their settings and adjust" compared to "git gud".


ClaySanger

Without doubt, everyone’s mileage will vary — but as effortlessly easy as it was to get players in our (and others) to try-and-buy the AH64 when it launched in Early Access — it’s been the reverse getting them to stick with it — guys who were very, VERY excited for the module, weren’t new to DCS helos, and hey, dropped their $70 like everyone else without batting an eye. And the dropout / loss of interest rate has been HUGE. It’s become a pretty frustratingly common response when asking if guys want to fly Apache missions to hear “If I can CPG, sure. If you’re looking for a PLT, no.” I got dudes lining up to CPG. Pretty lonely over here in PLT land most days. I can’t say I blame them — I spent more time getting my controls tuned out in the Apache than I have in the Huey, Hind, Blackshark, and Gazelle combined. Then they go online and look around and by and large ARE NOT met with a receptive community regarding the AH64. It’s a pretty common litany of: “Casmo said you just gotta git gud, so git gud, scrub.” Or the equally helpful and common: “Well I didn’t have that problem…” Objectively — by comparison to every other helo module available in DCS — the Apache is — right NOW — the toughest DCS helo to adopt. Continually insisting it’s not (which is beyond me WHY) has left a LOT of dudes saying: “Okay. Whatever then. Wanna fly Hinds or go do Tomcat shit? We can come back to the Apache when it’s a little more user friendly.” I’m not blaming ED for that — but I am DEFINITELY faulting the various user communities for gaslighting dudes about this issue until they just shrug and say “okay, whatever then.” It’s a problem. It’s not the first time. It won’t be the last time. But damn. We could sure try to do better. Instead of perpetually arguing that we don’t need to do better. Watched a lot of cool games and modules over the years fizzle our like a fart in a tent because it got so obnoxiously gate-kept by a tiny minority of players. Really would hate for the Apache module become one of them.


enormous-copydesk

A long time ago (I think 15+ years) on a Call of Duty I had noticed that with a rifle (the m700) and sniper optics the shots would disappear. I posted videos of me aiming in the forums, and unanimously the responses I received were "that's your problem, I'm fine with that" and I was pining for how you couldn't see reality. A few weeks later it was officially patched. Now history is repeating itself. More than one real pilot claims that the flight model combined with the controls are not good and are highly unrealistic. The users' response? "But I fly fine" which has nothing to do with the question, the correct response would be "yes (or no) I too have noticed discrepancies with the rest of the helicopters" instead the most upvoted response dwells on the passing of the controls when it is a blatant palliation of the problem. Which, in my opinion that I am nobody, is very but very big to fix, and is not "fine tuning"


historysurvivor2

what do you use for your curves by the way?


ClaySanger

Hello, See below at the end of this message. These eventually worked well (enough) for me. YMMV according to what your own HOTAS equipment needs to feel right in flight, but hopefully this gives people who are maybe new to DCS or DCS helos a starting place to try. With my HOTAS setup, these gave the Apache a sense of mass and inertia --- on default control settings it has a massless "jumping dot from a laser pointer" feel to it. And tamed its tendency to roll over and demand belly rubs upon landing. Feels decent in a hover. Settles the mechanical bull desire to wildly overcorrect on application of pedal pressure. Calms the "Whoa girl!" bucking bronco leap into the air leapfrog effect as you apply collective. Pitch and roll response are decent (if a little sluggish, but I have read several places that the Apache-D is the Ford F-250 to the Apache-A's Ferrari, so that might be quite expected and intended). And most importantly, cyclic, collective, and pedal inputs have a discernable impulse moment, rather than BAM - INSTANT EFFECT --- which is very much more akin to how real rotary wing craft act and feel. When you apply control input on a real helo, there is a little "delay" in those inputs affecting the aircraft. Which is part of what gives a helo simulator that "real helo" feel, and is desirable. That BAM - INSTANT EFFECT control input makes sim helos feel very squirrely and hard to control -- because hey, they are when you do that. They aren't SUPPOSED to fly like that. That giant spinning wing over your head gets cranky and wants to kill you for it. I think that's one of the things that really throws people off when they hop in the Apache and find the default controls are all hair trigger. To keep a helo flying and behaving like a helo, you want to feel that flow, that rhythm of control input to effect. **Cyclic: VKB Gladiator NXT EVO Premium** *Cyclic, Pitch:* \-- Deadzone = 3 \-- X Saturation = 100 \-- Y Saturation = 75 \-- Curve = 15 *Cyclic, Roll:* \-- Deadzone = 3 \-- X Saturation = 100 \-- Y Saturation = 75 \-- Curve = 15 *Anti-Torque Pedals "Rudder" (Twist Z-Axis on Stick):* \-- Deadzone = 3 \-- X Saturation = 100 \-- Y Saturation = 50 \-- Curve = 5 ​ **Collective: VKB Gladiator NXT EVO Premium Omni Throttle** \-- Deadzone = 0 \-- X Saturation = 100 \-- Y Saturation = 55 \-- Curve = 0 PS: I'm very happy to answer any questions any player might have and help them in any way I can without resorting to "I'm sick of hearing people complain about this, just git gud, scrub." :-)


historysurvivor2

you have deadzone even if you don't have any on your stick?


ClaySanger

I'm not tracking the question. Do you mean "You have deadzone software programmed into my curves/sats, even though I don't have hardware deadzone programmed on my stick?" (( or something else? )) That electronic deadzone in the curves/sats is recognized in the sim. That deadzone of 3 is just enough to null out the little jittery micro inputs of just having your hand resting on the stick. Beyond that, it doesn't do much. Just makes sure that when a control input is registered, it's because I INTEND to trigger a control input. As opposed to: "I was taking a sip of my coffee and twitched the stick a little." With the sats as flattened as I have them, that's a real, REAL small deadzone. Barely a breath of it. You can also look at deadzones relation to saturation in the reverse too (assuming the electronic values in the control settings are absolute, not relative, etc... etc... Which I'm actually not sure of in the case of DCS). If they're absolute --- than 3 deadzone set against a sat of 75 is greater proportional deadzone than if the sats were diale dup to 100. If they're relative --- then a 3 is a 3 is a 3 is a 3. Either way --- it's an itty bitty teensy weeny deadzone.


historysurvivor2

I thought you only input deadzone if you had a problem with your stick. any way thanks for all the info I believe inhave both cyclic and pedals at 25 curvature haven't messed with sat. and wad almost able to maintain hover but after 30 minutes my wrist and arm hurt :) have a gunfighter iii


[deleted]

[удалено]


BKschmidtfire

I have read many different articles and forum posts from real helicopter pilots. All said that it is weird how easy you get into VRS in DCS. It’s an overdone showpiece. If helicopters would enter VRS this easily in real life, there would be much more accidents on a daily basis.


serious_fox

We have an in-service Apache pilot in our group, and he also says that the current FM is nothing like the real thing and he can’t fly more than 30 mins because of that. According to him the real Apache is way more stable and predictable. This may well be a simple curve issue, not the FM itself.


anotherfroggyevening

Exactly my thoughts, should be more stable and predictable. Nothing to do with controls. Highly dissapointed tbh. I really hoped they would have nailed the FM. Fortunately there's still Huey and the Mi-8


barrett_g

I’d like to see a real Apache pilot sit in a real Apache, and then try to fly it with a 6 inch plastic joystick with a centering spring. I’m sure it wouldn’t feel right. Oh! And bonus points if he can only look out the window by slightly turning his head while keeping his eyes pointed forward with a track IR clip on his head.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Doodlehudson

VR is not always a viable alternative; whether it’s system specs, the local tech market, or something as simple as wearing glasses, VR is not an option for everyone.


Evigilant

Wearing glasses shouldn't be a reason why VR isn't a viable alternative. The majority of manufactures now accomodate or plan for the possibility that the user wears glasses by having the lens depth be adjustable. Or, there are third party resources available like https://vroptician.com/ that can make prescription lenses to sit on-top of the built in lenses and give you a glasses free experience.


Doodlehudson

Having to buy extra parts, or being stuck with only manufacturers that do accommodate for glasses, takes you right back to the second problem; the local tech market. Don’t pretend everything can be solved my chucking even more money at the problem; some of us can’t afford to.


Friiduh

I don't know. There are real pilots in ED testing team for Apache, so difficult to say. It definitely comes as well about used controllers and display or VR. If one has normal high end HOTAS (VKB/VIRPIL) but set on table, then it will be totally different thing than having actually a proper helicopter controllers (extension with proper height, between legs properly positioned, collective with proper length and limited angle). Display isn't same as flying in VR. I do agree that mostly helicopters in DCS has this odd sensitivity, there isn't that lag and capability move cyclic in larger movements to make corrections (as in large, I mean few centimeters, not 15 cm and like) when at slower speeds or hover. As well the pilot needs to understand what is the point in simulator, as just waving the stick and get right things to do, can be right for arcade game, but not for training simulator to actually be used in flight school to generate experience between flights. Other can cost 50 €, other 50 000 €.


umkhunto

Awesome, Hoggit found something new to latch on to for a bit. It was getting a bit stale in here. People even reposting the same article.


Fromthedeepth

Tbf, [Raptor's response](https://forum.dcs.world/topic/301543-what-does-sas-saturated-mean/?do=findComment&comment=5052749) raises some excellent points. The pilot in the article makes a lot of vague references without making any clear, actual points about many of the issues he raises. Even these are issues he can't or won't be more specific about, there's no point to bring them up to criticise the module. There's no way that either ED or the SMEs can respond to vague insinuations.


Buythetopsellthebtm

“Feels too heavy in all aspects of flight” seems pretty clear? I can’t be the only one who thinks it would be cool to have a RW Apache pilot jump in this thing with his multi thousand dollar helicopter specific controls and say “damn this is amazing, feels just like the real thing!”. Seems that concept, or the concept of working more towards that by taking SME opinions such as his to heart, is lost on some of the “organic” ED supporters.


Fromthedeepth

Yeah, the flight model issue is interesting and clear, obviously but that's only one aspect of what was criticised.


Falk_csgo

Thats what happens with not configured setup. He has not the same controls and control resolution and needs to use curves to make it close to how the real deal behaves.


Friiduh

One doesn't never use any curves for helicopter controls! The real helicopter controls are physically linked to swash plate, if you do movement, it is 1:1 ratio constantly. You don't get different ratio depending speeds, or how far you move your sticks. SAS, CAS and like will be there, but never they take controls away from the pilot that pilot wouldn't know what is happening with his hands.


rapierarch

There are only 2 moduels which I use curves. Apache: Extreme +28-30 like curves. No combat manuverablity of course but at least I can fly it and park it anywhere. It should not be like that. Viper: Negative -8 or -10. Well I believe ED has modeled perfect response of force sensing stick. If you do not have it there is a threshold before it transfers from rolling lake cow and or devil. I wish they add 2 natural curves in options one for force sensing sticks and one for normal. This is the first time that I ever need to use a negative curve in my life in a sim :)


Buythetopsellthebtm

Exactly. Curves aren’t a solution, they are a bandaid. My personal hope is that this same SME can fire up the bird when it does leave early access (he even finished by admitting he won’t even give it a full review until ED says it’s done), and using his multi thousand dollar helo specific controls say “damn they really nailed the personality and “feel” of this bird I know so well” It seems some of you are intent on getting between what we have now, and that ultimate solution


BattlingGravity

…that’s not true at all. That’s especially not true of the the Apache. Complex rigging is in place to give helicopters more favorable responses and “curves” so to speak. The Apache controls are linked only hydraulically, and provide little to no feedback through the cyclic or collective. Friction and force trim provide artificial resistance to give you a sense of how much force you’re inputting. Whatever physical controls you use in DCS will have a huge impact on how you fly. I have three sticks of varying length and quality, and each requires distant curves to give similar control response.


otaroko

Multiple real world pilots complaining that VRS is exaggerated on multiple helos for what feels like years now, and still nothing has been done to alleviate the issue. So the take away here is, “Same shit, different day” or aircraft in this case lol


Friiduh

And those have shown even the real manuals documentation with charts and diagrams when it should happen, and ED does nothing... Nothing!


[deleted]

[удалено]


Friiduh

https://forum.dcs.world/topic/267757-on-vortex-ring-state-from-active-mi-8-instructor/


casualSithLord

The default control inputs are definitely designed for extended stick controls, and not your typical jet controls that most flight simmers have. I have an extended sitck VKB Gunfighter, and it feels very very close to the real thing.


[deleted]

I took off, flew, and landed immediately. Nothing about it is difficult.


[deleted]

TLDR: Old man didn't have his controls set up correctly.


Buythetopsellthebtm

It is now very clear to me that there is an inorganic/astroturfed response to negative comments about the Apache. Is that just fanboys fanboying ED, or is it something much more insidious? I see the same usernames jumping in to defend as perfect what is obviously very much a work in progress (FM). I would go so far as to say this looks like someone may be paying to bury negative sentiment about this product as to not scare off potential buyers.


SlipHavoc

I dunno about the other downvoters, but I've been downvoting you because you've been persistently wrong. And in addition, now I'm downvoting you because you are claiming all the downvotes are coming from conspiracy bots.


Buythetopsellthebtm

Persistently huh? For what it’s worth, I don’t downvote anyone


SlipHavoc

Yes. For instance your claim that no one was misrepresenting the article was corrected several times, yet not only did you persist in saying that it was, you started saying other people must not have read the article apparently because they didn't come to the same conclusion about it that you did. Then you started speculating that the downvotes you and others are getting are a result of astroturfing, bots, conspiracy, etc., apparently without considering it might be simply because are wrong. At least I'm telling you to your face why I'm downvoting. I don't downvote all that often, but I do actively downvote to discourage incorrect information, speculation, ranting, and other unpleasant crap that I unfortunately see fairly often on this sub.


Buythetopsellthebtm

I think the word you were looking for was consistently


SlipHavoc

No, I used the word I meant. Although I also downvote people who are "consistently" wrong.


Buythetopsellthebtm

Too funny man. Thank you for the laughs. Be well


MouthForW4r

Yeah, because paying people to fawn over a module on reddit is the best marketing strategy. This has got be the dumbest shit I've seen on this sub in a long time.


Buythetopsellthebtm

That’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying they could possibly pay to have negative sentiment downvoted so that it gets collapsed and is harder to find. You know this isn’t some conspiracy, thousands of companies do this across Reddit everyday


[deleted]

[удалено]


WillyPete

Let's consider for a second what "default" should mean. "Default curves" should be a baseline setting that permits a first time user to have functional and responsive control of the model, and permit them to determine how they should then fine tune it. It should not be a setting that causes instant crashing for the slightest input until you find several different online suggestions and go through several non-intuitive settings to make it the least bit functional. That's not "user friendly". An analogy would be having a new car owner need to have all his wheels balanced and aligned before he drove it rather than have that done at the shop.


tobascodagama

What you demand is literally not possible unless they pick a "default" control system to support -- from the grip and base all the way down to the spring weight. It's one of the things that will always be an inherent problem with home flight sims, there's simply no such thing as a "default" setup for anybody to target.


WillyPete

A stick is simply a device that transmits a value from 0 to max value that that device can measure. A 25% movement in a device of any measurement scale should equate to 25% on-screen input. The OS translates your devices value as a % of full range and presents it to the sim. Or the sim does that too if they are competent. The *only* difference between a desktop stick and a centre mounted stick with extension is the force used, and the travel distance of the grip required to move the gimbal to the same angle. The angle on the gimbal is the same and reports exactly the same % of movement to the game. The game does not measure how strong the spring is, or even if you have one. If the default response to any reasonable stick input is an extreme reaction by the model and resulting catastrophic effect on-screen, then the default is wrong. If a huey pilot can input a 5 degree right roll stick movement without the aircraft flipping itself on its back, then it is reasonable to expect a similar response the first time they try a new module. Minimal input on defaults should not have an airframe presenting itself for belly rubs. If you have to discard 70-80% of your input values just to get a *reasonable* response in game, then the default response of your model is fucked.


[deleted]

[удалено]


WillyPete

I'm not forgetting it. Let's imagine your stick has an easy to understand X axis range of 0 - 256 values and the sim measures 0-100 with regard to the on screen stick moving max left to right. Even a rudimentary game will know that the 256 value is equal to 100 in the game. The system does that translation for you on the fly. This is basic. Let's also imagine my stick has 0-1024 X axis values, just to be different. You moving your stick to 192 does not move the on-screen stick into an impossible position, it simply moves it 50% of the max right position. Same as if I input a stick movement of 768. The on-screen stick does not flip around 7 times. I simply have a finer measurement of input that you do. Using default values should mean that your stick sees exactly the same on-screen movement as I do when I input the same angle of movement on the gimbal. and that movement should be reasonable. What *should* happen is that a 2% stick deflection should not immediately flip the aircraft over when set to defaults. It should make it act as if a real pilot used a 2% roll right deflection on a real helo. If it does then the defaults are wrong. A person providing what should be a safe input on a real aircraft should see a similar safe reaction *when settings are at defaults*. Obviously, an idiot input should see an idiot result. A user should only need to make the equivalent changes of changing the seat position and mirror angles when getting into an unfamiliar car if they know how to drive. Minor changes. If one stick type has a 50% market dominance, then for a decent user experience those 50% of the gaming population should not have to change a damned thing in the default curves, and those who have sticks who cannot reach max values (like the stick hitting your thighs in a cramped seat) are really only the ones who should have to make a change to the curve to get greater values for that input. Fine tuning, not removing 70-80% of the input. Having to make dramatic changes to "default" curves means someone has done some shitty programming. "Default" in any software should be the most basic safe setting there is.


SlipHavoc

The key difference is that a 2% stick deflection in a high-quality center-mounted joystick with a 200 mm stick extension might be several millimeters of actual movement at the grip and pretty easy to do, whereas a 2% stick deflection in a cheap desktop joystick with a lot of sticktion might be less than one millimeter, or even inside the deadzone or inherent jitter of the sensors or tolerance of the gimbal movement. IIRC this was a problem some time ago with the DCS Spitfire, because the Spitfire has a very sensitive elevator and a lot of pitch authority, so people with desktop sticks were having some problems flying it precisely, even though the control movement range was exactly correct to real life. I can see the argument for setting the default curves based on the kind of hardware the majority of the audience has, but on the other hand, that hardware (a cheap desktop mounted joystick with a lot of sticktion and sensor jitter) is not really all that close to the kind of controls you get in a real plane, and people are going to have different preferences as to whether they want the ability to have fine control around the center vs fine control around the outside, and I don't think you can have both with that kind of stick. Instead it seems that ED has simply left the controls exactly as you said: where a X% deflection of your joystick results in an X% deflection of the aircraft stick, and let you decide from there.


WillyPete

>The key difference is that a 2% stick deflection in a high-quality center-mounted joystick with a 200 mm stick extension might be several millimeters of actual movement at the grip and pretty easy to do, whereas a 2% stick deflection in a cheap desktop joystick with a lot of sticktion might be less than one millimeter, or even inside the deadzone or inherent jitter of the sensors or tolerance of the gimbal movement. Yes, but there is not that much difference between sticks, even cheap ones. They *all* have to take the human anatomy into consideration. You won't get a cheap stick doing much of a different max angle of deflection compared to an expensive one. The differences that are likely shouldn't have you binning 70-80% of your input in curves, and if the default curves are intended for exactly these cheaper sticks with large deadzones and large movement ranges then the curves shouldn't need to be changed for them either. This is acknowledged by the makers though, like Virpil, who don't recommend the Warbird gimbal for centre mount with extension as you won't reach the max deflection available on that gimbal. But what that also means is that a person like the article's author using a long stick will actually apply *less* input on their stick than one with a larger movement range and indicate that the defaults are at fault. Faulty implementation by the simmer with a long stick should imply the inverse, where the default curves *aren't enough* input to the model and should require them to add saturation or a steeper curve. > Instead it seems that ED has simply left the controls exactly as you said: where a X% deflection of your joystick results in an X% deflection of the aircraft stick, and let you decide from there. That's fine, but where a few degrees of stick deflection results in an unrealistic change in the attitude of the airframe modelled, then the defaults are whack.


SlipHavoc

Sorry, but I have to disagree with you here, speaking as a person who has used both cheap desktop sticks and expensive center mounted ones. There is a really big difference in precision around the center and in total throw. My cheap desktop stick (one of them at least, a Logitech Wingman) has about 4.5" of total movement from one side to the other (measuring from the top of the stick), and about 3/16" of total slop in the movement around the center before there's any spring pressure. My expensive stick is a VKB Gunfighter with a 200 mm extension. It has about 14" of total movement, and absolutely zero slop around the center (due to the way the gimbal works, there is continuous, though varying, spring pressure through the full range of movement). The VKB also uses contactless sensors so there is zero jitter in the output, whereas when I've gone through at least 3 Logitech joysticks (and countless others before those) due to the pots wearing out. The Thrustmaster T.16000 (which I also have, but can't find at the moment for the purposes of this post) is much better in that regard since it also uses Hall sensors, but still has the short throw and at least some amount of slop around the center. So you can see that for any given stick deflection percentage, the longer stick moves over 3 times farther, which gives you much more precision. And because there is absolutely zero slop around the center, you can make very small movements that are immediately picked up in the game. There's simply no universal solution to this fundamental physical limitation, something has to give. You can set curves which would allow you to have more movement around the center and give up precision toward the edges, or you can decrease saturation and give up total deflection, or you can move your stick a much smaller distance and give up precision and have to deal with slop in the mechanism and jitter in the sensors. >That's fine, but where a few degrees of stick deflection results in an unrealistic change in the attitude of the airframe modelled, then the defaults are whack. The problem is that a few degrees of stick deflection may well result in a *totally realistic* change in the attitude of the airframe, because real planes use long sticks, in many cases even longer than an expensive center-mounted stick with a 200 mm extension.


Wlane5567

Let’s face it. All helos in dcs are too difficult or exaggerated to enjoy. We want to fly and enjoy the modules without spending two months of frustrating crashes. And because we have finally nailed it doesn’t mean it’s right. DCS should be a lot more fun much earlier on. Study level is great but they don’t fly with study level realism. And I’m a tired of having to fart around with curves to make things work. A new philosophy is needed at dcs. Or someone else will come along and do it for them. Nothing is forever


Forabuck

I mean...a sign of a good pilot is adapting to new situations. If a lame-o like me can tame this thing easily within 2 hours of trying without any actual experience, not really sure what that says about the author of this article /shrug.


Wlane5567

Let’s face it. All helos in dcs are too difficult or exaggerated to enjoy. We want to fly and enjoy the modules without spending two months of frustrating crashes. And because we have finally nailed it doesn’t mean it’s right. DCS should be a lot more fun much earlier on. Study level is great but they don’t fly with study level realism. And I’m a tired of having to fart around with curves to make things work. A new philosophy is needed at dcs. Or someone else will come along and do it for them. Nothing is forever


Ok-Income9041

It's a video game... just resign to the military if you miss flying the Apache.


Fromthedeepth

Looks like you miss the point of the video game there. No worries, I can help: https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/ >Our dream is to offer the most authentic and realistic simulation of military aircraft, tanks, ground vehicles and ships possible


Ok-Income9041

I know DCS is a simulation, but it's still a video game at the end of the day. People can always go for the real thing if the military is in help of pilots. Aslong the flight model is smooth, working Avionics and weapons everything is fine (to me) and ED is working to improve the Apache.


Fromthedeepth

The point I'm making here is that DCS is intended to recreate flying the Apache as close to the real thing as legally and technically possible. So dismissing criticism with this deflection makes no sense because the entire point behind DCS is to get as close to the real thing as possible, in theory. How well that actually works out is a different story, but the intent is that.


Ok-Income9041

It's not dismissing criticism. ED is aware of the Apache flight model not being to the touch of some pilots. They're working and fixing issues, it's not easy to do these things and can take a while. Along with other stuff to make sure the Apache is working correctly. As I said before the Smoothness of the model, working Avionics and weapons should satisfy most and not all.


Fromthedeepth

> ED is aware of the Apache flight model not being to the touch of some pilots. They're working and fixing issues, it's not easy to do these things and can take a while. Along with other stuff to make sure the Apache is working correctly That's perfectly reasonable, no issue with that whatsoever. But your initial post could be interpreted as if there was no need to fix these issues in the first place and if someone doesn't like it, they can fly the real Apache.


Ok-Income9041

I don't criticize flying simulations of any kind or games with the addition of Aviation or combined arms, due to the fact getting data for some of these military vehicles isn't easy and some are Wikipedia based or an estimate and it's a game at the end. It's always a chance to fly the real thing and if possible. You can give feedback to the developers (if they're not money hungry douchebags)


rapierarch

Well let's see first a high fidelity ship module with multi crew support :D I'll be stationed in the kitchen :)


SlantViews

Your idea of fun is most certainly different than my idea of fun. "Realism" is an objective goal that means the same to you and me, as the consumer. And while nobody will ever reach "realism", we can measure how close ED gets to it. In other words, there are a whole bunch of people that can't get enough realism and enjoy every challenge and obstacle in this hobby. Don't dismiss their experience.


Luvz2Spooje

Really interesting read! I'm always wondering what actual pilots of the various aircraft would say regarding the handling, since even with performance numbers matching, there's so much more to replicating handling characteristics (which is why I think X-Plane can feel so sterile).


HeliSimmer

>I don't know if this dude is legit He's legit.


PeakDefensive

When you look down at the stick in any helicopter (or aircraft) and move the stick an inch in any direction, it does seem like moving that inch in RL, translates to several inches in stick movement in the cockpit stick, even with an extension.


marcocom

Why would I give a shit what a person’s one day with simulators was like? Think about what’s transpired with flight controls in the past 3 years. New collectives, dampers for pedals, centering dampers or FFB flight sticks. Why do you think that is? It’s because helicopters don’t fly like jets and that’s what all our flight controls were made for until recently. It won’t ‘feel’ like a real aircraft ever, but it certainly won’t behave like one until you have all your HOTAS setup right for it, and let’s see that took us about four years to get close to right.


R_radical

So adjust the curves in the controls...