Beta Testers: What about the Bell?

[Flyboy2]

We all know what a disaster the helo turned out to be in FS2002.

Did MS rectify all the anomolies in the Bell 206 flight model in FS04, or is it still unflyable?

[DaveKDEN]

>"We all know what a disaster the helo turned out to be in FS2002. Did MS rectify all the anomolies in the Bell 206 flight model in FS04, or is it still unflyable?"

Which SPECIFIC anomolies are you refering? I haven't had any problems flying the default Bell since day one.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[Flyboy2]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 11:43AM (EDT)[p]>Which SPECIFIC anomolies are you refering? I haven't had any problems flying the default Bell since day one.

I was truly hoping no one would actually admit to not knowing about the problems the Bell had (has).

I really don't want to open the old wound AGAIN, since it was cussed and discussed ad nauseum when FS2K2 was released, and for a very long time after.

REAL Bell drivers reported in on all the forums and ngs and confirmed its poor flight model. It's NOTHING like the real thing. If it was, all Bell pilots would be dead by now.

Oh, sure, the thing is capable of flight, once it's out of ground effect. Ever try flying in ground effect below say, 40 kts or so? Ever try hovering in ground effect? If you have, and had no problems, as you allege, you either have everything set to "easy" mode or you have a very different sim than the rest of us.

If you are one of the 2 or 3 simmers who actually invested the massive amounts of time necessary to master it, you're just flying a circus act, not a simulation of anything like the Bell 206.

The "SPECIFIC" anomoly is that the FS2K2 Bell 206 has a very nasty, and totally unrealistic, tendency to want to roll over at very low airspeeds, and, once the roll commences, it's difficult to impossible to reverse with cyclic or anti-torque input.

Given that maneuverability at very low altitudes and very slow airspeeds is the helicopter's main forte, the 206 in FS2K2 was pretty much useless.

I'm hoping for improvement in the next version, as are lots of other folks, so we can finally enjoy some *realistic* helicopter sim flying - as realistic is it can be, given the limits of PC flying. FS2K2 falls far short of that objective.


OK. I answered your question. Now, your sig says you're a "Beta test pilot". "Beta" of what, SPECIFICALLY"?

If it refers to FS04, how about an answer to MY question? Did they fix it, or not?

[Ironstar]

I have been flying the bell now for a couple of years and I don’t think that its that bad. Switching from fixed wing aircraft to choppers is like the difference from day to night and requires a lot of different techniques and a lot of practice then what one is used to with fixed wing.

I recently installed a modified Bell 206b that you might want to try out and see if it’s any easier to fly then the default Bell.

From the read-me:
This Bell 206 has been extensively modified and tuned by Steve Hanley for Digital Flight members. It has a custom flight model by Dr. Steve Baugh that makes it fly much better than the stock model, custom sounds including start-up and shut down sounds by Manual Gonzalez, custom touch down sounds by Steve Hanley, added effects upon landing and hovering over various terrains, a HUD panel, minipanel and registration with ATC as "Dream Flight 001". I have also modified the views so that, when hovering and in slow flight; the pilot can see the ground area in front of him/herself much more realistically than the stock views. The pilot is also sitting in the center of the chopper, which messes up the Virtual cockpit, but makes it much easier to see exactly what is going on when flying the recommended MINIPANEL view.

Bell 206B Update w/HeliHUD FS2002---bell206bDF.zip---http://www.digital-flight.com/

Give it a try and let me know what you think.

Hopefully it will be better for FS2004.


[font color="purple" size="1" face="Tahoma"][/1]
[Center]http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3ee958500ab1676c.jpg [Center]
[Center]Mach Speed (760 mph) at sea level.

The earth rotates on its axis at a rate of a little more than Mach 1.3 at the equator.
The earth revolves around the sun at the rate of approximately Mach 59
The Milky Way galaxy is traveling at Mach 1,776.[Center]

[Center]The Blues Had a Baby and They Called It Rock N' Roll
by McKinley Morganfield
a.k.a. Muddy Waters[Center]

[DaveKDEN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 12:38PM (EDT)[p]>"If you are one of the 2 or 3 simmers who actually invested the massive amounts of time necessary to master it, you're just flying a circus act, not a simulation of anything like the Bell 206"

Honestly, I imagine there are more than just 2 or 3 of us. But, yes, I've spent a rather large amount of time to learn to "master" the Bell (and general helo) flight model in FS. I can easily hover them, fly them backwards and put them anywhere I've tried. No, I don't have the realism settings set at easy and yes, I can fly it when set at hard. I don't kid myself into thinking it will fly like the real thing, but then again, it is JUST a PC sim. I also don't think I could go out and hop into a real helo and land atop an oil rig in the North Sea. ;-) Now, UNTIL and UNLESS I PERSONALLY have experience at flying the real thing, I can't make any comparisons, now can I? Could it use some help in the flight model dept.? Like all simulated aircraft - you bet!

>"The "SPECIFIC" anomoly is that the FS2K2 Bell 206 has a very nasty, and totally unrealistic, tendency to want to roll over at very low airspeeds, and, once the roll commences, it's difficult to impossible to reverse with cyclic or anti-torque input"

Now that's a specific and likely valid point (why wasn't it included in your original post???). While it is difficult, I don't find it impossible to control in such instances. HOWEVER, a good joystick with speararte rudder control (or better yet - rudder pedals) is an absolute necessity when flying helos in FS.

>"OK. I answered your question. Now, your sig says you're a "Beta test pilot". "Beta" of what, SPECIFICALLY"?"

The sig should speak for itself by now (as they've become quite popular it seems). Eaglesoft Development Groups (EDG) Beech 400 and Premier 1. In response to the seeming implication of your statement, yes, I am a real world pilot (fixed wing only), but if you follow these forums closely, you'd already know that.

>"If it refers to FS04, how about an answer to MY question? Did they fix it, or not?"

Unfortunately, it only refers to EDG. I think the rest of us will have to wait until FS04 comes out to see what improvements MS has incorporated in the flight model dept. However, as many real world pilots here have stated again and again (myself included), the basic flight model in FS is actually pretty good - considering the INHERANT limitations of a PC based flight sim. Could it use improvement - you bet. Are there better flight models in payware 3d party add-ons - a big YEP! Could they also use some improvement - I'm certain they could. But then again, all the mulit-million dollar Class D full motion flight simulators I've flown don't hit the real mark exactly.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[Flyboy2]

>>"The "SPECIFIC" anomoly is that the FS2K2 Bell 206 has a very nasty, and totally unrealistic, tendency to want to roll over at very low airspeeds, and, once the roll commences, it's difficult to impossible to reverse with cyclic or anti-torque input"
>
>Now that's a specific and likely
>valid point (why wasn't it
>included in your original post???).

By now, I didn't think it would be necessary. I assumed this was widespread general knowledge in the sim community. It was a MAJOR issue a couple of years ago, and it made the rounds about everywhere.

> HOWEVER, a good joystick
>with speararte rudder control (or
>better yet - rudder pedals)
>is an absolute necessity when
>flying helos in FS.

Of course. I have CH USB ProPedals and use the MS Sidewinder FFB stick for the helicopter (CH USB yoke for fixed wings) - but they don't compensate for the FS2K2 Bell's vile and unrealistic control issues.

>In response to the seeming implication of your statement, yes, I am a real world pilot (fixed wing only),

As I have been for over 30 years. Own a Comanche 260.

> but if you follow these forums closely, you'd already know that

I haven't been on the forums much since FS2K2 was released. Not much has happened since then.

> I think the rest of us will have to wait until FS04 comes out to see what improvements MS has incorporated in the flight model

I figured a beta tester for FS04 would be able to answer.

> However, as many real world pilots here have stated again and again (myself included), the basic flight model in FS is actually pretty good - considering the INHERANT limitations of a PC based flight sim.

Agree. At least for the aircraft types I've flown in the real world, MS has done a decent job of modeling them, within the limitations of consumer-level PC flight sims, as you note.

[DaveKDEN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 02:32PM (EDT)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 02:31 PM (EDT)

>"By now, I didn't think it would be necessary. I assumed this was widespread general knowledge in the sim community. It was a MAJOR issue a couple of years ago, and it made the rounds about everywhere."

While probably correct, the contentious issue of MSFS flight dynamics requires one to be specific. All too often individuals (who really don't know any better) come screaming into the forums complaining about flight dynamics without providing specifics. Unfortunately, many times these individuals are only repeating what they've heard or read on MSFS flight dynamics without providing examples of why they feel they're lacking. In addition, these same individuals rarely have real world flight experience, let alone in the aircraft type they're complaining about. My (oft stated) point regarding the issue is one should provide specific examples when addressing flight dynamics.

To be clear, I'm NOT accusing you of acting in such a manner and am VERY glad you responded with your specific example of why you feel the Bell is lacking.

>"I figured a beta tester for FS04 would be able to answer."

I wish I were lucky enough to have been a FS04 beta pilot. I don't imagine there were many real world Bell (helo) pilots involved in the beta process though. My assessment of FS is that it's always been centered on fixed wing flying. The Bell has mainly been an amusing afterthought intended for a VERY narrow group. Now that MS is including an R-22 as well as the Bell, we might end up seeing some of the limitations in helo flight and engine modeling addressed. One can hope, though I wouldn't hold my breath. In the meantime, I'm actually satisified with my simulated "helo" experience in FS. However, my opinion is based on NO real world helo experience of my own (though I plan on changing that at some point down the road).

>"As I have been for over 30 years. Own a Comanche 260"
Most excellent!!!

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[DaveKDEN]

>"Are there better flight models in payware 3d party add-ons - a big YEP"

I should have included freeware add-ons in this statement.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[ladamson]

The trick for flying the Bell. Reduce slider settings to medium. The downside, is that eliminates yaw when applying collective/throttle to hover. Rudder pedal still works great for left and right, and cyclic controls are quite stable. Actually, the whole thing is a bit too much on the stable side, but at least my seperate Saitek X-45 throttle control works well for a throttle/collective combo, and the joystick works well as my cyclic control. Easy to hover, as well as forward flight. But then I flew R/C choppers for many years, which perhaps helps. I also have rudder pedals. At full realism settings, the roll/pitch commands are far too sensitive & not responsive enough to cyclic corrections as mentioned.

Ladamson ---- R/W too, and radio control - chopper. And if I was a beta tester, I couldn't say anything anyway! :)

[keaja]

Who says you need to set your Realism on easy?
I fly the Bell with all the realistic sliders on max, but it took me about a week to practice flying the helo. Its alot harder then a fixed wing plane, you have to spend time with it and develop techniques and understand how different it is.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e76ef1172040a02.jpg

Captain Jason Winn
UPS905

Atlanta ZTL ATC
DEL/GND/TWR

Amd Xp 2700+ 333
1 Gig Cosair PC2700 XMS 333
Epox 8RDA+
Antec 400 Watt PSU W/ Dual Fans
Radeon 9700
Windows 2000
Sound Blaster Live Audigy 2
80 Gig Maxtor 7200 Rpm 8MB Buffer

[Flyboy2]

>Who says you need to set your Realism on easy?

NOBODY did.

>I fly the Bell with all the realistic sliders on max, but it took me about a week to practice flying the helo. Its alot harder then a fixed wing plane, you have to spend time with it and develop techniques and understand how different it is.

Really? Thanks for the tips.

You need to go back and re-read the original post. The question is not "How hard is it to fly the helo". The question was, "Is the flight model of the FS04 Bell 206 any better than the one in FS2K2"?

Geez. Get a little less full of yourself and pay attention, "Captain".

[DaveKDEN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 07:19PM (EDT)[p]One of the nicest features (and most often overlooked) is the custom realism settings. While most FS users probably set it and forget it, the flexibility it offers is quite remarkable. I typically adjust it depending on the aircraft. The Realair SF.260 (NICE - and thanks again for the info Larry) requires all sliders to be set at max with autorudder off. I typically fly helos with the sliders half-way between mid and max (as max is I'll admit a bit too "twitchy"). IMO, most flight dynamic complaints probably stem from a mis-understanding and/or non-tweaking of the realism sliders combined with the lack of a decent joystick or yoke setup. My guess is many set the realism sliders at easy and forget about them. The fact that MS inlcudes this flexible feature should not be overlooked. They allow the novice to set an easy flight model to start with and the ability to gradually increase the realism setting as experience is gained.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[ladamson]

>Geez. Get a little less
>full of yourself and pay
>attention, "Captain".

Flyboy2 ------ You also, seem a bit "full of yourself" in nearly every reply............... starting with me and "the river & roads" topic. Have a drink or something!!!

Ladamson

[Flyboy2]

>One of the nicest features (and most often overlooked) is the custom realism settings. While most FS users probably set it and forget it, the flexibility it offers is quite remarkable. I typically adjust it depending on the aircraft.

As real pilots, you and I can agree on a lot of stuff. The above may be true with the sim, and you may have stumbled into an "undocumented feature" that makes MS flight sim more "flyable", but I normally prefer to set realism to max and let it just dump me in the dirt if I'm not ready for prime time on the aircraft, *PROVIDED THE FLIGHT MODEL IS RIGHT*. If it's not, all bets are off. I lose interest quickly.

[Flyboy2]

>You also, seem a bit "full of yourself" in nearly every reply.. starting with me and "the river & roads" topic.

Yeah...lakes running up the side of mountains? Good idea.

> Have a drink or something!!!

So...you wanna hear what I REALLY think?

[ladamson]

>So...you wanna hear what I REALLY
>think?

I'll tell you what I think...............

You've made a big deal about 30 years of piloting and owning a Commanche. Fine......... I started in 68' and own an RV6A.

What I don't do----------- is come to these forums trying to make a big impression by putting everybody down! These forums are frequented by many real pilot's, retired pilot's, and sim pilot's who probably are less than impressed with your lack of manners.

Ladamson

[DaveKDEN]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 08:04PM (EDT)[p]LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 07:59 PM (EDT)

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 07:53 PM (EDT)

>"The above may be true with the sim, and you may have stumbled into an "undocumented feature" that makes MS flight sim more "flyable", but I normally prefer to set realism to max and let it just dump me in the dirt if I'm not ready for prime time on the aircraft, *PROVIDED THE FLIGHT MODEL IS RIGHT*. If it's not, all bets are off. I lose interest quickly."

While I normally leave it alone for a many of my add-ons, there are many aircraft that require a bit more tweaking using the realism sliders. I'm afraid without this feature, many would have given up on FS as soon as they fired it up the first time. Many 15 year olds would have "dumped into the dirt" on their first try (with full realism set) and had daddy return it cause' "it isn't any fun to just crash all the time." The franchise would have died before it even got going as us "die hard" simmers are likely a small minority of customers.

PS; It would certainly be easier if you could just set the realsim sliders and leave them alone. Unfortunately, that just doesn't seem to be the case. MSFS and PC simming in general requires quite a bit of compromise in many areas. Flight dynamics is one of the biggest.

http://www.flightsim.com/dcforum/User_files/3e8e19af14337f4c.jpg

[Flyboy2]

>You've made a big deal about 30 years of piloting and owning a Commanche. Fine......... I started in 68' and own an RV6A.

That's quite impressive, ladamson. Now, show how I "made a big deal" about my flying experience. How did I do that, exactly? By making a simple statement?

>What I don't do---is come to these forums trying to make a big impression by putting everybody down!

Whatever you say, ladamson.

>These forums are frequented by many real pilot's, retired pilot's, and sim pilot's who probably are less than impressed with your lack of manners.

Probably less than impressed with your inability to spell (all the apostrophe esses above) as well, ladamson.

Chill.

[ladamson]

LAST EDITED ON Jun-24-03 AT 08:16PM (EDT)[p]>Probably less than impressed with your
>inability to spell (all the
>apostrophe esses above) as well,
>ladamson.
>
>Chill.


:-lol

I'd have preferred the weeping violins, but didn't see any here. I don't need to "chill", as I'm too old, too thicked skinned, and could really care less....................

Ladamson

edit---- P.S.

Instead of worrying about my spelling and comma's.......... why don't you put that 30 years and Commanche experience to use, with constructive & helpful postings; Instead of the why doesn't MS do anything right----- type of garbage. It really get's irritating after awhile.

Ladamson

[Flyboy2]

>Instead of worrying about my spelling
>and comma's..........

It's not bothering me, trust me..

> why don't you put that 30 years and Commanche experience to use, with constructive & helpful postings; Instead of the why doesn't MS do anything right----- type of garbage. It really get's irritating after awhile.

Look - this thread started with my Oh, so simple, question to *BETA Testers* (yeah, not you, ladamson) as to whether the FS04 Bell corrected the widely-accepted flight model issues of that in FS2K2.

Now, you wanna start a pissing contest about whatever your difficulties are regarding my post/attitude/whatever. Get a life.

I made some statements that I didn't like the FS2K2 helo flight model. And you can't stand it. What's the deal, ladamson? Do you live in a perfect world?

What would make you happy? For me to just take the position that everything's always been A-OK with MS flight sim, all versions, and there's never ever been anything they could have done better....something like that?

Not gonna happen, ladamson.

There's always room for improvement in most anything. We can choose to look at all this with our rose colored glasses on, or we can take a realistic look at it, and criticize what can be made better. I, for one, don't plan to just acquiesce to whatever's offered, no matter how mediocre it may be. I'm going to speak up if I think there's room for improvement.

If that makes you uncomfortable, ignore my postings. That's the best advice I can give you. In this country, we are still free to speak our mind, far as I know, regardless if it makes you uncomfortable. That's the way it is, you might as well get used to it. It's not gonna change if I have anything to say about it.

[ladamson]

>Look - this thread started with
>my Oh, so simple, question
>to *BETA Testers* (yeah, not
>you, ladamson)

And how........... do you know?

Ladamson