I think -as with all discussions about ‘flight models’ you need to be careful to distinguish between how core physics are implemented and how a particular developer then uses the variables/parameters available in the SDK to make a flight model for their aircraft.
The fact that new parameters are introduced to the SDK does not mean anything unless the developer implements them by adding the code. The fact that a given flight model is based off another aircraft in itself does not mean anything either - all that matters is what the developer puts in the flight_model.cfg file for their aircraft (i.e. if Microsoft changes the 407 flight_model.cfg, this will have no impact on any 3rd party aircraft that have used it as a template unless the 3rd party developer decides to mirror those changes)
As far as I am aware there have been no changes to the core physics in MSFS with SU14 although there are now more SDK parameters that allow a developer to tune ground effect to some extent and there may have been others added with SU14 (not paid too close attention).
1 Like
The aircaft.cfg isn’t containing a flight model. It’s parameter determinists how to utilize and tweak a given flight model.
This is exactly what i was saying if i remember correctly there were two physics introduced turbine and piston if they were changed that would affect third party helicopters using the native physics but the flight model of the 407 is not the same as the flight model for Cowan only thing that’s the same is it is using the turbine physics
Surely that becomes the flight model
…but only inside the limitations of the underlying flight model.
Example: If the Flight model doesn’t provide plausible data of turbulent airflow affecting the Tail rotor in a translational lift, you are not able to do it inside the aircraft.cfg. You can write a script that mimics this effect, but this won’t work in all regimes.
Yes i agree with that but that’s not the 407 flight model that’s core physics for turbine helicopters and while the 407 has had changes reading release notes there seems no changes to the core physics… Anyway they fly fine for me, no difference, maybe something else has gone wrong somewhere but i shall bow out of this now as some of us say they fine and others say they are not and no one wants to budge, added to this there is no word from cowan on them being broke or on their forums and other helicopters based on turbine physics like the llama and allouette also seem fine, and with my rl helicopter experience while there are many faults nothing feels totally untoward
Think of the flight model as an engine, and the .cfg files as ECU settings.
Only the manufacturer can make changes to the engine, but other parties can affect how it behaves in some respects. It’s easy to see how a change to the engine will affect everything that uses it.
MSFS‘ main problem is that control surfaces (and so rotor pitch) work in reaction with the actually simulated air flowing over them but at the same time the airstream around the aircraft and its effect on fuselage and stabilizing surfaces is not simulated. So while the aircraft reacts super sensitive to control inputs there is barely any stability from airflow and inertia.
Usually helicopter airframes are built so that they are rather stable at speed with little pedal input required, which is basically missing in MSFS. So devs need to find a sweet spot in the comfig settings and make many compromises, if they hit the nail at speed they‘ll suffer at slow speed etc.
I do not think that MSFS will have a good helicopter flight model as long as the air doesn‘t flow over and around the whole aircraft. The direction they went was right but it hasn‘t been finished as so many things in MSFS. We can certainly hope for 2024 but I wouldn‘t hold my breath. Too few people really bother and know how it should be, MSFS is directed to everyone but the most part had no idea and prefers the „gamey“ approach. My bet is on external coding aka above mentioned FlyInside and Accusim as examples for those who really want a good flight model.
I have no idea where you got this concept that there’s a specific 407 flight model built into MSFS. There are a bunch of helicopter specific parameters that you can put into flight_model.cfg ( aircraft.cfg doesn’t define a FM either ) to define your helicopter’s behaviour - the default Bell is exactly like a Cowan helicopter or any other native helicopter in that they use the SDK parameters, that’s it. If MS change the 407 it does absolutely nothing to affect any other helicopter. If you change the 407 it does absolutely nothing to affect any other helicopter.
If they change the behaviour behind the SDK, then it’ll affect every native helicopter. They added some minor settings, I have not seen any change in behaviour. Unfortunately.
I forget who the DCS Huey pilot is, but they may be interested in the Gazelle now which got a completely new FM & really does change behaviour at speed, just like the post above was asking for. It does have a pretty big horizontal & vertical tail.
See this is what i dont get you are absolutely spot on but i never use pedal once i enter the ETL range and they fly straight for me ( yes they need trimming) but i never use pedal until i come out of ETL and i start making Torque adjustments
There is still some definitional confusion here:
Flight Dynamics Physics = the core code of MSFS flight physics. Not alterable by 3rd parties.
The SDK = the software development kit parameters available to the developer to create the desired flight characteristics of the aircraft
Flight Model = the flight_model.cfg file of any given aircraft where the SDK parameters are coded to obtain the desired flight characteristics for that aircraft and only that aircraft.
So you can see that the OP’s questions does not actually make much sense and hence the confused discussion. What they could have asked was:
-‘has helicopter flight dynamics physics been changed?’; or
-‘has new SDK parameter ‘x’ changed anything/has anyone started to use it?’; or
-‘has the flight model for helicopter ‘x’ been changed’?
1 Like
Yes, I think that you are correct. SU14 didn’t make any significant changes to the basic physics. There were some changes to do with turbine engines and the twin engines and throttles. These changes were implemented I believe by Cowan in v2.0 of the MD500 and now the engines and throttles work. But as far as I can tell the flight dynamics are the same.
It’s easy to see why there’s confusion.
In the application itself, there is the ‘FLIGHT MODEL’ settings page to select between legacy and modern. Are these not different versions of what you describe as Flight Dynamics Physics?
Yes, switching between ‘Legacy’ and ‘Modern’ changes what SDK parameters are read by the sim. What then happens inside the black-box of the flight dynamics physics code I’m not too sure. But when people talk about ‘the MSFS Flight Model’ like it is one thing is pretty meaningless. Many of the ‘flight model’ complaints that are made in general terms against Asobo are often better directed at the aircraft developers who don’t take advantage of the options made available in SDK.
That’s not to say that the flight dynamic physics are flawless - they definitely have limits and flaws (ground effect being one), and not all the SDK parameters are up to scratch (try coding ITT in a turbine engine…), but its important to start by looking at how a dev has implemented SDK parameters first.
1 Like