Interesting approach to judging helicopters, appreciate it! And I am thankful for any MSFS helicopter content :) I have been flying nothing but helicopters in the sim since about a year, when I got my Virpil collective. Fixed wings are boring! Funny that none of my top 5 are in your video, but that just shows the slowly growing number of aircraft available. So my top 5, in no particular order: HPG H160, HPG H145, FlyInside 206, FlyInside 47G, Taog's Hangar Alouette III. The HPG's have all the bells and whistles of modern helicopters, way beyond anything else on the market regarding systems. The H135 was just a first proof-of-concept, no comparison to their payware models. The FlyInside helis have a wonderful hands on feel and very good simulation of engine limits and failures. Probably the only models where you can perform realistic auto rotations. Taog's Alouette III relies more on the standard sim stuff, but with lots of details and finesse.
Thanks for the comment! And the assessment on the HPG fleet, sounds like I need to look into a couple of those and the Flyinside 206 to add to my collection and re-evaluate!
Not sure if you've ever played it and it's more of a mil sim but I have not found a sim closer to real life for helicopters than DCS. The way the flight characteristics are, are just bar none. My only complaint is VRS seems like a real problem so that's the only thing that happens more than it should.
@@deekamikaze I have DCS and played it exclusively for some time, up until MSFS started adding helis natively. I agree DCS feels more correct and I also like the chopper missions that are not necessarily battle oriented -- moving loads around on the sling, rescues, etc. DCS's weaknesses are the inferior environment graphics, limited geographic regions with inferior correlation to real world structures, and focus on military aircraft. In the end MSFS won me back for their superior aircraft selection and worldwide coverage. I'm looking forward to their 2024 release with mission oriented play. I know serious pilots are not impressed by this move but then, Captain Helisim isn't a real pilot LOL
@@CaptainHelisim I get ya there. I'm not technically a real pilot either but I'm very slowly building my hours for rotor so I enjoy the realism but yes I definitely agree that it would be nice to have the whole world to explore instead of just a few regions. At least the buildings in DCS are interactable and you can land on them and do loads and set things up even though it is military related. I would like a bigger selection of helicopters as the MD500 series are some of my favorite although I'm not exactly sure how they would fit into DCS. I do have to say that I am kind of a fan of the logistical side of the game and I do fly rotors and the C130 for supply and transport and a full fidelity CH47 is making its way into the game soon so I am very excited for that. They plan on implementing a few things it did IRL including Fat Cow where you basically turn into a gas station for other helicopters. There's also a few SAR and Firefighting servers that use helicopters for fighting relatively realistic forest fires and I really enjoy that aspect of it too
A fantastic and realistic appraisal with added humour. What more could a heli-mad viewer ask for? I agree with your views on the CS206B3 and 500E - both so much fun and will immediately download the R44 for a look. I have been simming about as long as you by the sound of it and I have 'made' my own collective which is game changing and have a very extended Warthog cyclic which is fingertip responsive. Having those controls as accurate as possible is essential. I have a small amount of (very expensive!) time in a real life JetRanger which apart from being one of my all time life experiences, was really interesting. Much more stable than an R22 but asking a lot to be able to hover in the short time I was in it - but very nearly. The biggest and most groundbreaking revelation I had in all my years simming (as you eluded to) was when I got VR set up. Completely changed the perception of hovering and approach speed/height. It just wasn't improving on an LCD prior to that. Afterwards, it became very accomplished. Amazingly, a second flight in a real JetRanger was a lot more accomplished having spent hundreds of hours in the CowanSim 206 practicisng approaches and hovering in various winds. I really want to get a full motion rig next but I am waiting for the ideal model to become available - it is a major investment after all. Thanks for your vid, was really interesting.
Thank you for the interesting comment. I'm planning on attending the flight sim convention in Vegas next year just to try out some of the motion rigs. The reviews are mixed on these items and it's too much to spend on a "maybe". Have to try it out for myself before I can invest. Will report my findings after that show.
@@CaptainHelisim you're so right about it being a 'maybe'. How each manufacturer interprets motion based on sim variables may vary and reliability has to be in question for something shifting so much weight and momentum. I notice one big player has just brought out some reliability mods for its latest release... Too bad if you were an early adopter!
@@tasercs Agreed. The problems I'm having with the Varjo surprises me -- it's mostly an electronic device after all and these things shouldn't malfunction after not even 2 years of use. I give mechanicals the stinkeye in terms of long term reliability especially as built for "non-mission critical use" such as these "toys". I have been prone to saying the obvious yet intuitive statement - "The more complicated you make your life, the more complicated your life gets." If a headset's dysfunction is literally and figuratively giving me headaches, what am I really signing up for with a motion rig? I definitely have concerns, yet I'm curious how compelling they are.
@@CaptainHelisim I know I mentioned it previously, but I think in such similar ways to you, down to the making of a collective lol But there is no worse feeling than the anxiety you get with tech that it is either likely to go wrong or worse, if it does. I felt for you in your vid about the Varjo going wrong as my Reverb G2 suffered a very similar failure just outside warranty. It is a blunt and sudden feeling of realisation that I had all the settings and controls just right and was really enjoying simming .... then it came to an abrubt end. Worse perhaps was the "what do I do now?" dilemma. Buy another or change brands? I was lucky that with a bit of 'persuasion' I got HP to send me a replacement. Not sure what your consumer rights are in the US but in the UK, even if the warranty is just 12 months, you have some rights lasting up to 6 years if you can 'prove' the device had an inherant issue all along. I fitted cooling fans to the replacement as I'm convinced it was an overheating issue... interesting that the screens blacked out very similar to yours. Oh, and I spend quite a bit of time heli flying over NYC so your 'tour' video was interesting. I didn't realise the Pan Am tradgedy was the reason for lack of rooftop pads.
Thanks so much for this quick overview! I am just now getting into helicopters for my channel and really had no idea where to start. I went ahead and bought a collective which made a huge difference over trying to use the throttle and yoke, but, man ... what a different style of flying. I feel like I'm learning all over again, which is awesome!
It is a totally different experience. Obviously the controls are different but in its base operation, you're really "working the machine". As a former RC guy who did the chopper thing, my experience was that choppers have two main imperatives in no particular order: Destroy itself Destroy you Both if possible and definitely preferable. So you definitely treat them with a certain respect like having a pet shark. Glad to have you join the rotorhead crowd!
YES! I totally get what you mean ... I had to bust out my weight lifting gloves and put socks on because my hands and feet started sweating while trying to man the controls. I picked up the Marketplace birds during their big sale over the holidays, but do you have any favorites in the freeware space? I know some of those guys can pump out some incredible models from time to time. @@CaptainHelisim
@@MSFSFlightPlans There is a new Huey out that is freeware. It's ok, I wouldn't rank it super high. I think of the freeware models out there, my top three favorites in order would be: JXT 429 R44 SA342 All three are linked in the description above. All three have some weaknesses but they "feel" the best. Since you're just breaking in your rotor I would start with the R44 as it's a more tame, stable beast. The 429 is pretty twitchy and you should only approach that after your muscle memory embraces what to expect from a chopper. If you start with the 429 you'll be discouraged, viewing choppers as a witch's brew of helical nonsense LOL.
Thank you so much! I am recording an NYC flight tonight in the Mini-500, which seemed about as tame as it gets for the paware class. I think I've got the takeoff and flight dynamics mostly under control ... landing, well ... if I'm rightside up, I'll take that for now. I'll devote this weekend to test driving your lineup. @@CaptainHelisim
For me, there are only 3 models that shines out - HPG H145, Flyinside B206 and B47. These 3 have custom flight model that bypasses Asobo's flawed helicopter modelling. If you're a hands on "stick and rudder" person, go for the Flyinside B47 - a challenge to fly - no governor, no FADEC, no autopilot, no fancy avionics, just pure manual flying. If you like a fully automated airliner type of aircraft for full fledged IFR flight, the HPG H145 is for you.
My two favorites are the R44 and the Shrike 530F. I still mostly fly the V22 Osprey because... well, it's an Osprey! I am looking forward to trying the CowanSim R66 once it is released, and trying out the Miltechsim Chinook-47 because... well, it's a Chinook!
Thanks for your very interesting compilation. I am hooked on helicopters too. I fly them with sensitivities completely linear. My absolute favourite is (now you will laugh...!!!) The BYOB 2000! I can relate to it the most as a "poor man's helicopter" and its flight model is sweet but raw. It does nothing automatically for you, you have to stabilize it and keep it from overspeeding (not always easy!) But once you've got her "in the zone", she is like putty in your hands. Getting the feel of how to fly it feels like you have found a new friend. I also have a Cabri that is made by someone other than Asobo and to compare it with the Asobo version is quite interesting. The Asobo is, as you would expect, more arcade-like. The Asobo Bell 407 has one EXTREMELY annoying flaw (for me anyway), and that is that if you turn the throttle (actually the collective) all the way down to zero, it won't descend until it's almost at zero airspeed, which really means that the flight model is a modified fixed-wing flight model. I LOVE all CowanSim helis (I have them all), Not sure what to think of the Schweizer 300. Does the original fly so different from other helicopters as it does in the sim? I'm not convinced. I can fly all of them with relative ease, but not this one. I really wonder what's going on with that thing. The Mosquito - I found it way too "porpoisey" during flight until I realized that the Vne is just around 60 knots. If you stay below that speed, it flies very nice. If you get above that, you get asymmetrical lift issues, that's where it gets hard to control. It isn't, but you gotta stay below 60 knots. I also love the Airbus 125! The Airbus 135 is almost too easy to fly, but I'm willing to explain that away with it being a very advanced helicopter. So, that's my two cents worth ... lol
"Not sure what to think of the Schweizer 300. Does the original fly so different from other helicopters as it does in the sim? I'm not convinced." Well here's why I'm *inclined* to think it does fly like the sim. This guy did not know how to fly a helicopter but the way it reacts in his hands is the way the sim model does: ua-cam.com/video/VPCS6j76bhE/v-deo.htmlsi=zi9HBCnJ3kkk_bHV As for the 135, I'm thinking I want to get some time on the new collective until it really becomes second nature, then I'll go hit up a local outfit that does airbus simulation and see if they'll spot me some time on their rig. Like the intro flight in a real helicopter, I want to see how close a Class D simulator is to flight sim.
The HPG H135 always felt off to me, you're not the only one. It's the only heli in the sim that i can't land from cockpit view. Also a fan of the 500 in the sim.
I have the included two, which I don't fly often, and have the freeware HPG 135 and the payware HPG 145 and the Cowansim Bell 222. The Bell 222 is by far my favorite and most flown helicopter at the time of writing this. I like the 145, and I am contemplating the H160 when it comes out but as a former US Army helicopter mechanic, I wish that more Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky helicopters would be made. We need a good UH-1D/H for MSFS and a good UH-60A/L/M for MSFS. I do want the Cowansim Bell 206L3 and that is more than likely my next helicopter purchase.
Definitely want to try the R44 as it is a helicopter that I have flown a bit, though an R22 would reeeally be nice since it's my favorite between the two to fly.
I LOVE the Cowen Sims Hughes 500 but my biggest grip is the relatively low resolution of the cockpit and instruments. In VR, the cockpit and Instruments are a bit fuzzy, the writing is hard to read. The Hyper Performance Group H160 by comparison is CRYSTAL clear. I can read the writing on the other side of the cockpit. The instruments are crystal clear. It is very noticeable in VR.
Hm... interesting comment. I'm going to say something that'll probably be not too popular as an opinion when I include it in my next video but -- I'm currently flying in VR without corrective lenses -- i.e., the scene is a tad blurry in general. I can make out some of the numbers just barely, they're on the edge of readability for me. Thing is I know where the numbers are and where the gauges are supposed to be as far as redline, etc. So I don't really *have* to read them to the number precisely, just have an overall sense of what we're doing in flight. Admittedly the tiny GPS's are really hard to deal with, having to lean WAAAAY over to be able to set them if going to a specific destination, but mostly I fly for the feeling -- places I like, landing challenges, etc. And precise vision is not really all that important for that. Why don't I have corrective lenses? I got them for the previous headset and they were good but not sure they really add all that much. One could argue that you're inviting the "screen door" effect increasing the visual acuity of the experience, kind of like super high res TV exposes all the actor's miniscule flaws. Perhaps better to enjoy the overall experience rather than reveal every pixel in excruciating detail. But to your point, I wonder if the dials are hard to read in VR is related to how small everything feels. When I sit in there it feels like I'm a giant -- or like I'm flying a 2/3 size helicopter. The seat is WAY up higher than it seems like it should be, the pedals way closer. If I raise my position my head is up against the frame of the helicopter impeding my vision. Neither seems correct -- like the cockpit is too small. Maybe by similar reduction the dials and associated numbers are smaller than they should be. IDK.
@@CaptainHelisim I don't think that is the case, in the H-160 there are TONS of super tiny switches and I can read the writing perfectly because it is crystal clear. In the MD 500 I am using DLSS so turning off AMD Fidelity Sharpening did clear it some but as I said it is a night and day difference in clarity in the cockpit. A good example is look at the fire extinguisher in the MD 500. Notice how the status gage is flat, washed out and almost smeared. In the H-160 it is perfectly readable.
@@Bellthorian I can't tell for sure, I don't have the H160. Comparing against the H145 with the glass cockpit and no fire extinguisher at front, I can't tell a substantial difference in VR (perhaps again because I'm not using corrective lenses) but there does seem to be a slight difference on the monitor in the various text. So yes, you could be right that the 500 rendering is lower res. HPG in fairness seems to have more resources though -- they're constantly working on the models, putting new ones out, updating the gear, performance, and missions, their models incorporate more fringe performance like VRS and blade stall. I think they operate on a different level than Cowansim; just being real.
Man in the 160 I keep getting caught in something called vortex when I am trying to land. All of the sudden the helo loses lift and I plummet out of the sky like a rock. I need to read the manual lol.
@ORSE19682003 Yes, happens in the 145 too, and should in any properly modeled helicopter. You can do a search on vortex ring state on youtube. It's responsible for a lot of helicopter deaths and definitely something to be avoided. The fact that it is modeled at all in flightsim is GOOD! It means you will avoid bad habits that would get you killed if you ever had the opportunity to fly a real chopper. Short summary -- to avoid vortex ring state you avoid descending too rapidly and with too little forward airspeed. My understanding is generally no faster than 350 fpm when under about 35 knots. Preferably always keep some airspeed going forward, i.e., avoid descending straight down, but if forced to because of tight landing zone, do so very slowly.
At at 5:25 where you talked about the collective being attached to risers of some sort… they are, the collective is controlled by pitch change links that push the blades up or down collectively when you lift or lower the collective. The cyclic moves the pitch change links and the blades turn cyclically to get you moving in the direction you want to go. Fun fact: when helicopters were first being tested, they found that when pushing forward they were going left, pushing backwards they were going right…. This is a phenomenon called gyroscopic procession, where the movement you make on the spinning plane won’t happen until the system rotates 90 degrees. So when you’re pushing forward you’re actually pushing right, but the blades don’t move until they’re in the forward position. Pretty cool stuff!
Yes, but what I meant by that is that the 135 doesn't seem to behave like other helicopters. I mention in another video that it seems to behave more like a pneumatic platform, like a piece of construction equipment or something. And I think it may not be as unrealistic as first assumed because the 135/145 models have extremely advanced auto-pilot/stability features that tame its natural tendencies. All helicopters have the rotor control mechanisms but their method of flight is just inherently "swash-buckling". Kind of like an aerodynamic impression of Johnny Depp's semi-drunk Captain Sparrow. And being good at piloting something like that is what makes it great. No offense to construction equipment operators and Airbus pilots, but operating those hardware is not as impressive as skillfully piloting a fully manual chopper (in MY opinion ;))
I've not played FS2020 since before the heli update they did. I bought the HYPE 145 and found it very good compared to their free version the 135. Not tried any others. However the 500E you showed looked very realistic, and heard good things about that one. Thanks for doing this video.
Good video! Not many like it around, so think it was needed! I'm essentially a non-youtuber version of yourself, with decades of sim experience, and an addiction to rotorcraft. A couple of honourable mentions would be the 2 Flyinside offerings - the external flight model that bypasses the Asobo flight model really makes them shine in my opinion, and allow such features like realistic VRS, engine failures, hotstarts and retreating blade stall modelling. Can lead to a much more challenging flight - especially in the Bell 47 with it's lack of power! I only had the H135 very early on in the sim, and now fly the H145 instead - could it be any of the assists were on, that were maybe causing it to behave like that? I ended up disabling most of them in the H145, which led to a much more realistic and enjoyable flight experience.
I have all the assists off for the same reason as the point of the video -- I like my sim as real as it can be. The 135 has been criticized for some time -- I've seen the creators themselves point out that some have said it flies like it's "on rails". I didn't really notice anything amiss until I flew the DCS Huey and realized how much more fluid it is. And the more models I was exposed to both in DCS and MSFS, the more I disliked the 135. Thanks for the tip on the Flyinside domain; will definitely be checking them out.
Hm, interesting. I purchased the HPG H125 to do a comparison video to the real thing and I liked it very much, as I do their H145 and after some fiddling around even the H135 which I panned in this review. It would actually be interesting to do side by side reviews of both H125's since I've ridden in one. Will have to put that on a list of future videos.
I'm thinking I might have about half of the choppers available. I did a control setup video here which someone pointed out might no longer be 100% accurate because of changes in the game: ua-cam.com/video/0YL3-UnhGAs/v-deo.html
Yeah you mean there's no reaction to the skids when you touch down? I think you're right. I was sitting on the side of a real MD500 with my leg on the skid and when we started to lift off, I could feel the distance to the skid change with my leg. It's a very awesome feeling when you realize a very heavy flying machine is lifting because its weight is coming off the skid and it's "unflexing". That's pretty impressive. And I think yes, it affects the flight dynamics, or specifically the landing dynamics. When I land the MD500 in the sim it has a tendency to bounce and skitter around, even on supposedly non-paved terrain when in reality I think the chopper actually "settles" into the ground. You'd only bounce in real life if you actually hit kinda hard. So thanks for pointing that out, I'll include that in my review when I compare the real thing vs the sim.
Yes, this happens with all the machines in the simulator. A video evaluation of these small details would be great, it would increase the quality of your content.
My favourite is the MD 500E, i have to say. Mostly because it's fun to fly close to the terrain with and together with friends. I am an air traffic controller myself, and what i like is that it seems quite comparable how long it takes for hystercal palm trees (helicopters) to bleed off their speed before landing or coming to a hover. On teh Bell 222B you also have to give a teeny tiny bit of collective if you want to taxi while still on the wheels. Small details like that make things so much more believable.
the best are definately the Flyinside ones with their external flightmodel, but just because the stock MSFS rotor model sucks so bad.. DCS is still better by a longshot. And it has physics based slingloading.
Purchased and am flying the Flyinside 206. It is definitely among the most challenging choppers. Will do a side by side comparison video. I agree DCS feels good and I like their mission capabilities but have to say the visuals draw me back to MSFS. The ideal flight sim combines the best attributes of both. Perhaps that's what we'll get with FS2024. We can hope.
Great vid and after discovering ThrustMasters T.Rudder cfg app, 8 months after purchasing my T.rudder (yes, doh). The Cowan MD500E, some of the avail Robinsons now fly more realistically. I also love Cowan sims MD500 (now my default go to) but also the Bell 222B and 20x Rangers serise, over the H135 helicopters.
@Spelljammer1 appologies for the confusion, it's the cheaper TRP Rudder pedals, which I found out much later through another video you could download TRP editing software, from Thrustmaster, which gives you more control over your rudder setting. Rather than using build in MSFS2020 controller settings. Making fly Cowan 500 a dream.
Very good review and nice landings wow! I flew Bell 206 and MD 550 young in north of Quebec as passenger in suveryor land mission. Just hear her sound remember a lot of exciting moments. You convainc me will be amazing in VR. Thanks. Likes and suscribed.
It is fantastic in VR. Unfortunately the VR market has some supplier issues that warrant significant research and decision making. Well worth it, but careful consideration is needed.
As a Helicopter Pilot, I enjoyed your video. Very informative and professionally done. I'm looking at purchasing a gaming computer and the Flight Simulator program. Mainly interested in helicopters. Which flight controls do you use? How difficult is the program to install and operate? Any additional information is very much appreciated 👍. Thanks, Carl
High praise from a pilot! Someone mentioned that the Puma controls are the preferred choice for helisimming and based on what I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. I haven't tried them myself but they are complete, simple, and not unreasonably priced considering what you're getting. You can find them here: pro-flight-trainer.com/ Me, personally, I bought more generic aviation gear because I didn't really consider helicopters to be my focus. If I were to do it again I would probably go with the Puma. As far as software you have two main choices that I'm aware of -- Microsoft Flightsim and DCS. Each have their strengths and weaknesses and people frequently have both installed. For Microsoft they are scheduled to put out a new product next year -- Flightsim 2024 which has some stellar new features you might want to wait for. None of these products are particularly hard to install; the process is essentially automatic. I wish you luck on your simulation journey and would love to hear back from you as to how it compares to your real world experience.
Buddy, GREAT video, really smooth flying and very informative! I haven't found a single helicopter (mayyybe the FlyInside B47, but it also has it's issues) in MSFS2020 that actually flies like a helicopter. Maybe it is just my controls? Cheap joystick and pedals. Most of my real-life flying is in Robinsons and Aerospatiale/Eurocopter/Airbus (AS350, EC130, EC135) and I found the Cowansim AS350 to be a HUGE letdown, even if it is gorgeous (still worth the money, not gunna lie). Might be time for me to get back into the sim and tweak some controls or something? Hope it's just me not understanding how to set things up that is causing my issues with the helicopters in FS2020! Thanks for the video!
Wow really! I'm curious why you don't like the Cowansim as350. I would trust your opinion over mine of course, but I felt it to fly (as a sim pilot) essentially the way it felt as a passenger on the real thing. Felt heavy and truck like, at least as compared to the MD500.
@@CaptainHelisim I'm convinced 90% of my problems are my own controls and how I have them set up. Time to put some money into my own personal "sim" if I want it to behave anything like the real thing. Thanks for your videos and your response!
Nausea? I assume you use VR then? I have triple 43 inch ...4K screens. They are set up so my head needs to turn a full 90 degrees to view the extreme edges ...I consider it quite realistic ...so much so that I no longer use Head Tracking.
AHH OK. Well then it could be your rig is superior on the peripheral vision aspect which is great -- HOWEVER -- I don't know for sure but my guess is your floor vision is not so good. I mean, for stable landings you're not looking at the floor so much, but you are when you're approaching your target. Meaning you'd be able to land nice and smooth, but not exactly where you want. VR allows you to put it where you want it but at the expense of peripheral vision. A real helicopter gives you both at the expense of your wallet. So understanding your rig better I'll continue my landing advice -- Because your have monitors not VR, I'd suggest flying "proper", the way CFIs teach you. That is, coming in smooth and controlled, not chopper jock style. You're less likely to miss your target if you're hardly moving by the time you get there. So, fixed wing aircraft use the idea of a "glide slope" -- you slow down to approach speed at a slight negative angle like 3 deg. to your target and fly it all the way down to the runway, then flare and stall as the wheels touch the ground. You can use the idea of the "glide slope" for helicopter landings but the handling is a bit different. Instead of approaching at a constant speed, you are slowing down the whole time while maintaining this straight line trajectory. You do this by lowering the collective and pulling the stick back. You're kind of "pre-flaring" which rocks the chopper back and starts blowing air kinda forward like an air brake. You're not coming to a stop -- you're just slowing down gradually, all the while staying on your glide slope. If you drop below it, increase collective a bit. If you slow down too much push cyclic forward a bit. As you get closer to your target you're going to fall below around 35-40 knots and will start to lose lift suddenly. You won't know that necessarily because your eyes will be on the target but it will happen as you gradually slow down and the target gets close. You'll notice you're starting to fall out of the sky suddenly. You need to be mentally prepared for pulling up the collective smoothly and quickly to compensate. What should happen is that you reach ground effect hover just behind your target -- meaning by that point you should have slowed down and become buoyant enough to just float above your target so you can position it as needed. A couple pointers -- helicopters don't typically slow down very quickly unless you're being kinda jerky with them. So to do this smoothly you need to do this WAAAAY in advance. Make your glide slope very slight, not steep. So you're starting to slow down waaay far back when you can't even see your landing spot. By the time you can see it you should have dropped half your speed. By the time you get to it you're basically crawling. Will you always land in this pathetic airplane like way? No, but you have to teach yourself how the machine responds so that you can get a little more cocky with it later. If you're always fighting a bucking bronco you'll never be able to do "dressage".
I used to really like the old version of the Mosquito that used the AirlandFS physics"?" but the one using the standard physics feels different to the point I have to relearn how to fly it. I still really like it, and I'd love to own a real one (and at 60K it's almost affordable), but it does feel different than it used to. I will say I really like the Bell 222 by Cowansim a lot, and I'd highly recommend it. I just wish the force and auto trim worked. And the Mini500 is an absolute hoot to fly and worth every penny of $15. It also won't kill you like the real one will lol
I'd love to try to fly a real 500 some day. I remember when I went for my intro flight in the R22 the instructor had his hands on the controls and he released them to me one at a time. And I said fine you can release them but you still "GOT THEM" right? Like, I don't want to die, you don't want to die, we don't want to die. Let me have them but also you keep them LOL. I would love to try a real 500 on the same terms.
I've been in a few helicopters, though never had the pleasure of getting to fly one yet, but from what I've seen of them, those 500s look like little hot rods. The fun part about the real Mosquitos though is that with floats, they qualify as an ultralight under the part 103 regs! Don't think I'd do much flying in one without a few hours of instruction beforehand, though
The fly inside bell 206 is by far teh most realistic flight model.. THe hype h145, and h160 are also some of the most complex and complete models ever released for the sim.
The basic problem with all this is use of the word realism in the title, when the content is clearly about how a non-pilot thinks a sim model should behave. I don't mean to make this a personal criticism, just pointing out that the Web is overflowing with flightsim videos where people discuss how they think a model should "feel", then dismiss it as unrealistic because it didn't match their expectations. Enjoying how a particular helicopter handles in the sim is great - it's why we love the hobby. But it shouldn't be mistaken for realism.
I think you're right. This uncertainty is precisely why I took an intro flight in a real helicopter to determine how close simulation was to the real thing. My estimate is about 60-70%. But there's also the "viewer's" observation from the ground. As enthusiasts in the realm we've ALL watched countless helicopters take off and land and are familiar with their natural behavior. And I felt that some of the models did not really behave like what I've seen. But ultimately you are correct -- this is the projection of a wannabe pilot.
Well, you dont have to be a pilot to be able to tell that one aircraft feels more believable than the other. I've never flown a real aircraft but I immediately knew the A2A Comanche behaved a lot more like a real plane would when I flew it in MSFS. How so ? Because don't have to be a pilot to have a decent understanding of flying.
In the older days of sim racing, if the car was really difficult to drive, if it tried to kill you at every corner, it was considered 'realistic' and this is how sim racers used to guage just how realistic a game was. When a simulator was released that wasn't technically hard to drive, that didn't try and kill you at every corner, it was called too easy and not realistic enough. These days almost all simulator developers are releasing their games that were once considered 'too easy' or 'unrealistic'. People are starting to realise that a car that is very difficult to drive and wants to kill you at every corner wasn't realistic at all.
Very true. But a lot of professional car drivers and pilots more times than not say that the sim games are more difficult than real life. Which is good because it will make you a little more careful when trying the real thing
@@Redwood414 yes, and that is true, and the main reason sim racing is more difficult than the real world is because in real life you get most, if not all your feedback from the vehicle through your butt, in sim racing all feedback comes from audio/vision and FFB from the wheel. But the physics are a lot more realistic now, which makes driving modern racing Sims easier than what it was 20 years ago.
An observation on your landings from a student pilot. You should focus on keeping your skids straight in line with your direction of travel when you get below 100ft. You have a good feel for the height above ground, but nonetheless don't try to anticipate the ground, we want to see a slow but constant descent, controlled and stable. Don't relax as soon as the low skid touches down, keep flying it all the way down until you roll off the power. Keep it up, I feel the G2 is harder to hover in the sim than IRL, and the weather cocking isn't strong enough in the sim. You've really gotta fight to hover steady when facing downwind, it makes taxiing a pain on the arse if the winds behind you.
Vienta I thought about your advice and have a question. When I come in for a landing I frequently approach diagonally (or allow the chopper to yaw that way naturally because of the changing torque) because visibility is often restricted by a center console. The approach is often fairly steep in a small landing zone so looking *down* is rather key while still having the ability to see the horizon. And often in a variety of chopper models there are visibility restrictions but almost always there's a visibility "pocket" at the right 3/4 view that offers expanded visibility to the ground. I find it advantageous to look out this "column" of visibility showing both ground and horizon while approaching LZ using this visibility zone which turns out to be somewhat diagonally. I'm pretty sure I've seen some choppers doing this "diagonal approach" to LZ in real life. As far as being a student pilot I imagine you're training on a Robinson which has a very large visibility area where this is not as much an issue but most choppers seem to have a much larger console blocking a good forward/down view. Do you understand what I mean and do you have any comment on that?
@@CaptainHelisim Absolutely helicopter pilots do this in real life, I fly G2s and have been lucky enough over the years working with helicopters, to ride shotgun in Squirrels, Longrangers, MD500s and the Robby's you mentioned. The ag spraying guys are the only guys i've seen do it, they have a massive dashboard that they really have to crab in sideways (and they're cowboys at the best of times haha) so they'd often line up the landing diagonally like you say, for the same reasons you do, but they straighten up and descend the final 30ft or so straight. Basically, when you're around the Dead Man's Curve, skids straight. It's tough when the landing area is tight or extremely small (the back of a truck in ag usually) but that's the craft of being a good pilot. But hey, we've got to know the rules, to know when to break them. On a side note, the MD500s have the best visibility of any aircraft I've ever been in, you really are in a fishbowl. Incredible sensation of flight.
We need a Dodosim 206 for msfs2020. That was the best helicopter model ever in msfs. Sadly only available for fsx but I had many many hours in that. These just feel too on rails compared to that l.
@wout123100 yea I have it as off as it can be lol. I bought the strike 540f and that feels better. The dodosim is yet to be matched. I fly pc with puma x controls and a custom sim.
Thank you so much I enjoyed this simulator model very realistic how do you start looking into helicopter I would like to go to school and are this simulator can help you a lot I like it thank you so much
I think actual pilots might disagree, but it's my contention that becoming very familiar with helicopters in flight simulator can be beneficial in shortening the time and expense of getting an actual helicopter pilot's license. My understanding is it takes about 70 hours to get a license which is really not all that much, and that being good at flight sim can take 7-10 hours off that total. Not a huge amount, but some -- up to about 15%. That's not a bad discount for goofing around on the computer LOL. Most flight schools will be happy to sell you an introductory lesson for reasonably cheap -- well worth the price for a fantastic thrill you won't forget. Just do a search for local helicopter flight schools and you should be able to find something pretty close by.
I purchased it 3 weeks ago and have been flying it exclusively since then. It has been incredibly challenging to get good with it, particularly takeoffs and landings. Without addressing whether the Schweizer is an accurate model or not, its peculiarity can at least be accommodated organically in a reasonable amount of time. This 206 demands far more in terms of steadiness of hand and nuance of handling than the Schweizer or ANY of the models I called out in this review. However as far as I can tell Flyinside does not model mast bumping, a subject I cover in another video.
Aight I got a question for you. Last week I went for a scenic tour in Sedona -- front seat ride so I could watch the instruments. Pilot kept everything within limits but I noticed he was ascending and descending at up to around 2000 fpm. Also because it was Sedona (an elevated mesa airport) he came in flat at 0 AGL to the runway and did a couple speed bleeding turns to land nice and neat. He flew essentially the way I fly. A tad more conservatively given you get zero chances to respawn but still. Now I've seen some videos where the instructor basically treats the chopper like one of those big tired cub scouts -- coming in slow and steady at controlled glide slope descent. And my question is -- why such a huge disparity between "correct" and "in practice". I've seen all kinds of awesome flying and I fly like that. To my detriment, MSFS does a pretty poor job of highlighting the limitations of real world aerodynamics so I have little idea what's achievable, what's ok, and what's "prescribed". Can you fill in a bit on that?
Well instructors will always teach you to not get into bad habits. Flying like that is inherently dangerous compared to your “by the book/textbook” flying. Ascending at 2k fpm in a powerful turbine rotorcraft is generally a safe practice, and usually not done for very long periods of time. Maybe 30-60 seconds, but descending at that rate is very dangerous. Those are autorotation speeds. That can mess up your rotor assembly if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or don’t know how to control the disc. If the ship is still in forward flight then it could just be a rapid descent to avoid needing more power for a slower descent. Especially at higher altitudes. Or he could be having fun. Speed bleeding turns happen often, not much in heavy air traffic areas because it would affect the traffic pattern and give ATC a headache but it could be common in Sedona. If you are not in forward flight or “less than ETL” and you’re descending that fast you can get into vortex ring state, that’ll kill you VERY fast. Basically you’re getting sucked into your own downwash and if you don’t have enough altitude well … you’re dead. Knowing the limitations of your craft and studying the POH that comes with the aircraft and flying with more experienced pilots in that aircraft will allow for you to better understand and manage the aircraft in any situation. So as for why your specific pilot maneuvered the way he did, I’d speculate he did so to help you have a fun flight and to demonstrate the capabilities of that ship. Hope this helped! Any more questions I would be glad to help answer
@@HunterGrayBASSASSASSINZTV Yes, he was definitely giving us a thrilling ride -- flying in and around formations and dropping down into keyhole slot canyons. Definitely he was in forward flight the whole time while descending quickly. He said he "doesn't fly stupid because [he] has a hot wife to come home to" LOL, and I believe him because I didn't see anything "dangerous" so far as I could gather with my couple thousand hours on MSFS LOL. "That can mess up your rotor assembly if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or don’t know how to control the disc." -- please elaborate on this. Are you referring to keeping the rotor disk loaded, descending "level attitude", etc or is there something else I don't know about? I have experience with VRS in the flyinside 206 with their external flight model and with DCS. I'm disappointed that MSFS doesn't seem to support VRS inherently or other aspects of aerodynamic limitations, but happy there's anything at all to fly as I really enjoy it, and on the off hand opportunity to be in a real rotorcraft like you I'm positively giddy LOL.
@@CaptainHelisim I would fly the same way as him! Don’t have a hot wife or a wife at all for that matter, but I still fly within my limits. Although I do like to have fun around New Branufels and Austin Tx flying through the small canyons we have out here. It’s always a thrill. The maneuverability of helicopters and the moves you can make in them is actually quite impressive. They’re not supposed to operate in those manners, but somehow they do and it’s incredible. I’m sure your pilot has had many hours of advanced training. As have I and have used that training in real world situations. That gives him the confidence and hopefully the ability to not become complacent to keep himself, the passengers and the ship in a safe condition. That being said, as per my mentioning of the operational limits, the rotor disc is fully loaded as soon as you lift off the ground, you must keep that disc loaded at all times. Any severe shift in weight on a loaded disc can throw off the balance and send the rotor into the tail cone and sending you flying to the ground with no tail rotor. Uh oh, here comes LTE, and you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s very scary to think about. Just like fighter jets have limits on how much g’s their airframe can sustain, rotor discs have certain operational limits as well. This also varies with the type of rotor system you have. Semi rigid, rigid, articulating or fully articulated are the most common. Rigid systems are usually not used much as they can cost as much as the rest of the helicopter. Semi rigid is used on smaller birds like Robinson, Schweitzers, and other of the sort. They’re not meant to be used for anything other than straight and level flight with some turns. You do not want to mess around with a rotor system like that it can get real bad real fast. They’re just not built for super advanced maneuvers. Fully articulated is what you’ll find on blackhawks, bell 407, large s-92’s, the big mi Russian helicopters, airbuses, some other bells and so on. Those are your systems you want to use for high load flights and advanced maneuvers. That’ll give you the most efficient control and stability from an operators standpoint point.
@@HunterGrayBASSASSASSINZTV I recorded his tour on a GPS app on my phone and retraced his steps in the sim. He was flying smoothly the entire time, almost no excess G's felt other than minor in your seat and a couple lateral skids. At no point did we feel a loss of weight. We were descending rapidly but it was controlled and steady. Beautiful steady flying. I had a hard time splitting my focus between watching the instruments and the fantastic scenery going by. Pilot was a former military guy so he had it under his thumb the whole time. One of the interesting things I saw was during start up he verbally noted the status (to himself evidently) of all the instruments before and during start up. No F'ing around with this guy. Strictly by the book. Because I sat up front I liked how he pointed to my end of the console and said everything from this point to my side is MINE -- no touchy! LOL. It's a bit disturbing that he has to say that. What nincompoop is flipping a switch "to see what it does".
@CaptainHelisim Have you tried the "flyinside" heli's? I'm not a real pilot either, but in terms of comparison by observation, the movement and flight model seem very realistic. But comparison, all my other heli feel overly stable lol
I have the B206 which is a real bear. I like that it incorporates so many natural failure modes -- hot start, VRS, overtorque, etc. The B47, IDK man, that's a lot. Mr D has one, I haven't been in it or seen it yet but the idea of adding throttle control to the matrix of parameters to manage doesn't enthuse me. Rotor speed has a lot of issues -- too slow and there's not enough force to keep the blades out -- they fold up like a shuttlecock -- too fast and you tear them off the hub. Too many changes and you're yawing the helicopter all over the place and stressing out the engine. I already have my hands full just flying the thing LOL.
@CaptainHelisim I have the B206 as well, (love it) have not tried the B47 either for the same reason. I use my HOTAS throttle as my collective, and can't imagine throwing throttle into the mix either. Maybe on real sim collective where you can roll the throttle at the same time? One day. You may wanna check out flyinside RW162F that just came out. You mentioned flying the Cabri since you could "try and imagine buying one". IRL the 162F is "only" about $60K. So, not unimaginable to obtain, and you don't need a full heli license to fly one!
@@anthonyvaughn3063 Thanks for the tip! I didn't know he had added to his stable. He's got the turbine powered one as well which I'm inclined towards rather than piston powered with the Robinson style belts. I might go ahead and spring for that considering his track record of flight model authenticity. I saw a used turbine Rotoryway for sale for $100k. Thing is because of the nature of these things as far as maintenance and operating costs, like an exotic car, you can't afford to just manage to BUY the toy, you have to be able to afford to HAVE the toy. Also, I found a video of the Jetexec here -- this guy is really working the stick. I wonder if the model is like that. That's not at all like the MD500 which is super sensitive. You do that to the MD500 and you're gonna have a sad day LOL. ua-cam.com/video/eW118nqZfdk/v-deo.html
@CaptainHelisim Sure thing! Yeah, I was blown away by how tough the bell was. Once I got used to it, though, made flying my other heli a lot easier lol I'm torn myself between getting turbine or piston. You can get both right now for a discount, but I suspect I'll end up flying one most of the time. Possibly leaning towards the jetexec as well. It's like you say IRL the price is just cost of admission, lol. Hell, I'll be happy with another realistic heli in the sim for now I guess lol I watched some of that video. Wow! Those are BIG inputs! The motions he is making are the same as the others, just weird SEEING them so magnified. In everything else is just the smallest of "nudges", or even just pressure changes on the cyclic really. Interesting to see if that's reflected in the virtual model. Going to need to "recalibrate" my brain a bit if so lol
@@anthonyvaughn3063 I bought it and have been playing around with it this morning. It's definitely more "pushy" than a normal helicopter but per Microsoft's not quite right flight model, also a lot more spongy and fluid than I think is right. I don't think that video is showing this thing to be quite so watery if you know what I mean. Also as you noticed that guy was really pumping the stick and while you have to push more in the model than normal, it's not nearly as bad as what the video was showing. So far, I can't say I'm super impressed. It's cute and I'll probably fly it a bit, and probably learn to appreciate its limitations and characteristics but TBH it seems a little unpolished to me. Really like some of the better freeware work I've seen, not a $35 caliber model other than the elaborate fringe condition handling (VRS, etc).
Nice Flights! Do you use any of the MSFS Helicopter assistance settings? I bought the H145, which is a little bit to "heavy" for my system. Bad FPS. And I have the 500E, which has great performance, because I think the model is not so overloaded.
Hmm interesting. I didn't realize the chopper model would affect performance so much. Your system must be hanging on the edge. The H145 does have a lot of "modes", autopilot features, etc. It's a very elaborate model of a very elaborate helicopter. I'm going to be flying a real 500D this weekend for the first time ever! A lifelong dream come true. Because of such interesting "opportunities", I fly the sim as realistic as possible -- no assists, and usually trying to fly as authentically as possible, so that if I ever find myself in a real chopper cockpit I *should* have a more natural and smooth transition to it. I've been using my homebuilt collective for about 5 months now and have retrained my brain/muscle connection to use it as second nature. So I'm hoping being at the controls of the real thing will feel more "at home" than the first time I tried flying an R22.
At 2:40 where you said you have to fight the helicopters for control, that’s a real thing. The MD500 is one of the most stable rotor systems out there. That’s why they use them for high power line work and what not. All the other birds that you have to fight for control in are very realistic.
I have flown a few of these IRL. They seem real for a simulator but significantly different in the real machine. You might want a dose of Dramamine before flying the Schwitzer, maybe the Robinson or MD500. From sim videos, they seem quite realistic. Until you fly the real deal, you simply can't compare. The 206B and 407 are pussycats, the 429 I compare closely with the H145, and like the S-76. In the sims, I have fatally crashed all of these. The Schwitzer with its fully articulated 3 rotors, you can get into ground resonance. On the ball, you can get out of it before the craft self destructs. I'd like to try my hand with the Mosquito, both IRL and sim, looks fun.
Not a real pilot. The R44 is the only real helicopter I have flown and that only in lessons. In MSFS I have test most MSFS models or freeware as soon as they are available. So my perspective isn't so much how much a model is like the real life version but how easy or hard it is to operate in the sim. I liked the Hype H135 so much that I was an early purchaser of the Hype H145. I was completely wowed but figured that payware vs freeware wasn't a fair comparison. However, the H145 was a quantum leap over the H135 and I loved it. So, I bought the H160 as soon as it was available not expecting much improvement, but it was another leap forward. Your landing tests were interesting but from my limited perspective only a small part of a test. I'd be interested in some comparisons of control responsiveness, avionics, etc., among models in the sim. Thanks
Thanks for contributing your experience in real life and the sim. As to comparisons of other aspects, TBH I could do that but I would be speaking completely from ignorance. That is, I have no real sense for what's accurate or realistic other than the R24 I flew once. I kept this comparison to landings because that's one of the few aspects we ground-folk have any level of experience with -- admiring choppers taking off and landing-- so we have some idea how they move from an observer's POV.
The Lama by Taog's Hangar is the pinnacle of helicopter simulation for me. The only gripe I have with it are some of the rougher cockpit textures ( though overall a very good level of detail, even in VR ). This thing always puts a smile on my face doing just about anything with it. Currently also learning to fly the FI Bell 47. The Hype H145 is also a very good helicopter. It's my number two. The Cowansim H125 is nice but is a very nervous animal. If you trim the Lama properly ( spring joystick ), you feel the aircraft being stable. It's hard to get that in the H125.
Lots of great chopper suggestions. I was inspired to get the Flyinside 206 and it is definitely a challenge. After about 3 weeks of exclusive use I've finally managed to get a handle on taking off without veering out of control though I can still get quite squirrely in the final set down. I watched a video of an instructor saying that this is a thing -- in the final moment of touch down a lot of students start fiddling with the controls and getting all squirrely. Part of it is just wanting to put the thing down without excess harshness and looking professional and confident. I mentioned in another video that for a long time I ran on a spring loaded joystick messing with the trim but the truth is that's not how a chopper cyclic feels -- it's free form -- smooth in all directions. Trimming and centering negatively affects both your flight control as well as the realism. I can understand the desire to keep things generic if you fly other aircraft. For me, after getting enough chopper time I finally decided that's what I wanted to fly and took the springs out. FAR superior experience and I recommend it if you ever get to the point of committing to choppers. A floppy joystick might feel a little dumb flying fixed wing though. Unfortunately there's no joystick you can choose spring or no spring in real time.
Hello. You mention the H135 was "updated to the embedded flight model." That's not true, it is using custom physics from long before MSFS added helicopters. The other helicopters you tested all use the Asobo physics, this one uses a simple physics model to demonstrate the simulator could support helicopters.
Huh, that's interesting. I'm fairly sure it flew the same way under the AirlandFS side car app. I loved it as my first flyable enjoyable helicopter but once I tried DCS and got a better sense of how these things actually fly I was caught between the much more sensible DCS flight model and the far better graphics in FS2020. So was grateful to have Microsoft open their system up for rotorcraft. But the 135 never felt quite right to me regardless.
Are you controlling the anti-torque (or rudder) when flying them? Choppers are strange aircraft that do strange things at different times and you need to become familiar with those characteristics before you can fly them well. It's just the nature of what they are.
@@thegaminggemini317 Hm yeah I'd like to see that because sometimes things are not bound to the controls -- but you're saying you have good yaw control and at some point you lose control? The way I record video is to use flight recorder to record a flight, then play back the flight so I can record what I want to focus on either external or cockpit views. You can set the viewpoint to show your controls when it happens, and also you'll want to include the instruments to see if anything weird is happening there. You can get flight recorder at flightsim.to, just do a search there for it if you don't already have it.
I think what you are seeing and feeling with the H135 is it's Fly By Wire system. The H135 and H145 do not fly like traditional helicopters. Being Airbus helicopters with FBW controls, the pilot is moving the stick, collective, and rotor pedals, and these inputs are fed into the computer, and the computer is actually controlling the aircraft. It is very strange when you jump in one from another helicopter, but once you learn how it works, these helicopters become very easy to fly. It is like going from a 737 to an A320. In the A320 you position the control stick where you want it, and the Airbus FBW will move the aircraft to that attitude and hold it there, with constant automatic movements of control surfaces and trim. In the 737 the pilot need to make all those constant adjustments to keep the aircraft at any set attitude.
Yes, you are correct. I figured that out after purchasing the 145 and flying it around trim released. I realized the 145 is capable of flying like a real helicopter, it just doesn't when the computer flies it for you. It makes sense and it's a remarkable achievement in aviation but I prefer to fly the way a real chopper flies.
@@bronzecossack You bet. Planning on doing a video on control set up as a few people seem to be asking for it. Till then -- I have pedal sensitivity cranked up a bit as I like a little more authority without having to swing my legs wildly so sensitivity is up 9% left and right and the extremity dead zone is at -22% so I get to full pedal sooner than my actual pedals allow; meaning I can get access to maximum turn ability without having to swing my foot to the fullest extent allowed by my physical pedals. Collective is just a straight incline, 0% across the range.
@@vmfulcrum Have you tried either of the stock models included with MSFS -- the Cabri and the 407? Either of those are fairly sedate and good starting points. The Cowansim 500E is a good next step as it's very responsive and well behaved. After that it's a personal taste for different personalities and quirks.
@T.RockTx Was the Varjo Aero but that started malfunctioning after a bit over a year so had to replace it with the Pimax Crystal. Works great and feels better than the Aero. A slight bit heavier but that hasn't affected anything.
MFG Crosswind pedals VKB Gladiator NXT Evo joystrick (purchased before I realized I preferred rotorcraft over fixed wing) Most exciting of all -- working on a DIY collective. Found a relatively cheap way to create one. If it turns out well will post a video about it and for those less handy, maybe offer them for sale WAY undercutting currently available ones on the market.
Haha! I remember that. Yes, lame! But honestly I think flight sim was around before that, for the 286 or earlier. I remember playing it and it had some kind of dogfight mode against a couple of attack biplanes. That was pretty fun for the time. Imagine then if we could look forward to the realism we have today. I was always fascinated with each exposure to the latest realistic flight sim.
By popular suggestion I picked up the H145 and am putting it through its paces. My early use thoughts are thus: #1 It is a sterile experience. In the sense that the vehicle is so advanced that it flies much like a "Wonkavater" -- i.e., a moving chair that takes you where you want to go. It's not an enjoyable "helicopter experience" in the sense that there is a large flight control computing engine between you and the machine. It doesn't fly like any other model I have (other than the 135 of course). #2 It also has certain quirks like sudden sharp movements when turning that seem unlike what a real flying machine is likely to do, flight controlled or not. I will couch these statements in the ignorance of not knowing what a real H1x5 flies like; I've never even ridden in one. But I am angling to see if I can have a flight in a commercial H145 training simulator and if my fortunes work out, find out what it's actually like and if the model really flies like this. So the jury is still out and I still have a lot to learn on its mechanics and flight model, but so far not super enjoying how it feels. The summary is, it doesn't feel like an organic visceral experience like all the other non-flight control models feel. And to me, honestly, that's part of the charm of helicopters in the first place.
I appreciate your comments, but how can you evaluate how "realistic" any aircraft performs without "really" having piloted one? Nothing against your observations, but I'd like to see a comparison video like this from a "real" pilot. Still worth a👍
I agree with you, that would be far preferable and ideal. My perspective is that from a sim pilot/observer. Which is to say we've all seen helicopters fly and if we enjoy them in the sim, it's because we have an appreciation for the concept of helicopters, even if we do not ourselves pilot a real one. So this video is an attempt to match what the layman has SEEN against the sim. Because honestly some of these things don't move in the sim the way we've seen them to move in real life. That said, I DO have a LITTLE flight experience in an actual MD500, and a comparison with that against the sims is still in process.
Hey, saw you deleted your question. Answering that, definitely the mechanics are correct. In fact Mr. D introduced me to an event coordinator he works with who in turn introduced me to his group. He had high praise, saying it's very difficult to fly a helicopter, everyone who tries to hover one fails dramatically, but when I tried, I DID so evidently my simulator was better than his (his words to the group). If that's true about the simulator, I would attribute it to two factors -- the VR and the collective. Pedals too of course, I assume most people doing the sim have that. The VR because it gives you the spatial understanding of how the chopper flies and responds, the collective because it reduces your mental overload when you delegate it to muscle memory. Still, there's something about real that still causes overload. Although I'm more or less doing everything the same, it seems more overwhelming IRL. It FEELS like there's more going on up there. Like I'm behind in tracking everything. Maybe it's the reality of REAL traffic, or birds, or obstacles. Maybe it's the sense that there's no respawn there. You yank the controls too hard or the wrong way and you break the gear and you die. Maybe you run into a bird that turned the wrong way at the wrong time and you damage a blade and you make an emergency landing (or rather, Mr D does, and gives you the stink eye). IDK but it feels like I'm not keeping up, up there. But, as far as the controls, the feel, the spatial awareness, that was all pretty similar. As far as a number for overall reality match, that's really hard to put a number on. In terms of just flight controls and handling, I'd say pretty high -- 70% I think is close? I think you can increase that a lot with a motion rig -- maybe as high as 80-85%? I'd have to try one to see. In terms of mental overload, I don't even have a full grip on everything (I know NOTHING about the radio for example), I'd guess 40%. It's so overwhelming up there, I don't get tired. I get tired if I fly in the sim for longer than 30-40 minutes. I have yet to feel sleepy up there. It's like you're on hyper-alert, extra potent coffee. Also, I pre-dehydrate and pee before I get in the cockpit knowing there's no pit stops. That creates a certain not great feeling I don't get in the sim. Anyway, that's a partial comparison. I have to do a video on the subject. But in summary and to answer your question, am I wasting my time in the sim? Definitely not. If it helps you hover your first time, that's a BIG DEAL, since it's the hardest thing to do. As I said, Mr. D rated me "pretty good" and said that in private to his coordinator.
@@CaptainHelisim Thank you, Captain. I noticed your response to someone else's similar question, which is why I deleted mine-I didn't want to burden you with repetition. But I appreciate your thorough explanation this time. It's reassuring to hear that you believe the simulator is getting me 70% of the way there. My main concern was understanding the correlation between the simulation's flight dynamics (physics) and controls; I'm less interested in the systems and radios. I've been immersed in VR for about six months now, and I'm absolutely fascinated by it. Since I have family near Mr. D's place, perhaps I'll have the chance to try it out one day. The MD500 is definitely a lot of fun in the simulator. I also plan to build a collective lever for a more immersive experience.
@@JacobTJ1 If you CAN book a flight with Mr D, I HIGHLY recommend it. As I said in the video, if you love choppers and the MD500 specifically, this is basically a once in a lifetime opportunity. And if you think you're going to go down this road and become a pilot or get your own some day, then this is an amazing introduction into that world. Either way, if you love choppers I can't recommend it enough, you will NOT regret it. Unless like my son, you get motion sickness. Then maybe you will regret it a little LOL. Re: 70%, that's my number. I get a lot of flak from pilots who say it's nothing like the real thing, it doesn't feel real at all, etc. IDK I disagree. My mileage says 70%; that's based on the VR and collective. If I was going on a flat screen monitor and a joystick paddle collective then yeah, not remotely the same. Maybe that's what they're comparing it to, who knows. Unfortunately there are limitations that I agree are way off -- elevated helipads with a completely wrong ground effect, "bouncing" off the ground even with the softest of landings, lack of clarity on VRS, blade stall, Vne, LTE, settling with power, over-torquing, auto rotation, rough control handling, etc. A lot of boundary conditions that are a "high awareness" factor IRL that are mostly ignored in the sim and like I say, if you ever touch the real thing, you bring with you the ignorance, bad habits, and resulting fear into the cockpit. That fear of, "man I do a lot of crazy things in the sim and a lot of things I don't give much thought to... but this is the real thing... will I damage the chopper or kill us in the process?" That sobriety is a direct result of the sim not having fidelity to real life, and I resent it. But I encourage you to get a collective, get comfortable with it till it becomes second nature, then put it in the back of your mind to go catch a real flight to touch the controls for real. It is the best!
To answer your last question ...My favorite Heli is the CowanSim H125. Because I can fly ...hoover & land it well. But ...I'm almost sorry I watched this. Great landings Brother. Mine are simply NOT smooth ...often ending with the heli landing hard & often not on the H mark. It is a constant struggle for me & what I find the most difficult is transitioning into hoover mode without over-flying my target. Then I'm flying out of hoover & back to an approach situation ...I suck!!! I fly helis predominately lately (1 year) & should be better. I'm hoping it is the sloppy play in my stick. I can move it almost an inch before it reacts ...(an older X-56). It'll be upgraded. MSFS states I have 25 helis ...19 actually as some are the same model variant. I do really like the 500 ...but it is difficult. The H125 is the only one I'd dare say I'm good at ...& I simply love the Flyinside B47 ...very challenging. I'm hoping by now you've got time on the Taog Huey. It is my new favorite ...oh ...that sound!!! I'd like to hear your opinion on it. The single issue I have with that Huey is very unrealistic damage. I fly with no assists & full damage resulting in many failed landings ...but not in Taog's Huey ...I mean ...you can hit a dang building with it!!! Has anyone else experienced this? Diagonal flight ...so glad you too are seeing this & I'm happy to hear it is the sim & not me. I honestly thought it was windage or torque that caused it. I'll reposition my outside view occasionally to compensate.
LOL Huey -- yeah I was flying a tight canyon and I literally clipped the wall with my rotor. Huey's are tough! Just yawed a bit and kept on flying! Just like it would in real life! LOL. I agree though, I do like the Huey very much and that sound when you're banking relatively hard. May I suggest playing Unfortunate Son as a soundtrack when flying it for the authentic experience. I need to do a couple tutorial videos on takeoffs and landings. And hell, fancy maneuvers LOL. So a couple tips on landings. #1 are you using VR? Because if you're not, it's going to be extremely difficult to learn without it. I'll just stop with that because I know some people disagree with me -- I can fly NOW without it but only because I got familiar with the flight dynamics in VR. And yes, having a sloppy controls just makes the whole thing worse. Illustrating the difference, here's me with VR: ua-cam.com/users/shortscNRM8UKN5Ms Here's me without it, same model same airport same conditions: ua-cam.com/users/shortsYn-4IOrZYdo
@@CaptainHelisim I'll be honest ...the landing you used as your bad example ...would have been my best ...I would have been happy to do landings like that. This may surprise you ...I actually took a PP course many years ago & have 36 training hours in my Logbook ...in an old PA-38, Piper Tomahawk ...I got called to go to work out of province & didn't finish the course. Later, I got into Gliders & have over a hundred hours. I'm familiar with most aspects of general aviation ...but flying heli's, I'm just not getting. I've also logged over 2,500 on MSFS. It is my retirement hobby & I spent a small fortune on this setup. Having said THAT ...I should be far better at rotary wing flight. I just ordered a Thrustmaster Warthog stick ...to replace this old sloppy one. It'll be here this week & I'll let you know if it improved my flying. I really wanted to go with Virpil to match my collective ...but I refuse to pay over 40% in duty tax again. Last question ....do you recommend flying from the in-cockpit view only? ...both? ...or is the outside view "taboo"? ...like it is in iRacing. I ask because I often switch views to orient myself???? Thanks again ...your helpful & I think you SHOULD do a Heli-Sim Tutorial thing ...no one else is ...be the first!
@@MsTheCops I'm working on a landing tutorial as I write. Will have it up in a week or so, stay tuned. Hopefully it will help. Re: flight perspective I definitely recommend pilot view. That's the only way I fly. I SO recommend it, I intended to do that some 20 years ago in real life before drones were a thing. I bought an RC helicopter and installed my own videocam-transmitter-goggle setup so I could fly the helicopter from the cockpit while on the ground. As mentioned this was before drones, before RC videocam gear so all this was cobbled together from what was available. None of it particularly optimized. At one point I lost the helicopter in the sky because it was so far away and the signal was starting to break up. It's a truly terrifying thought to have a flying lawnmower in the sky capable of killing someone and not know where it is. I eventually gave up that pipe dream because it was just too risky and the helicopter itself was kind of unreliable. But all this to say the pilot view is the most sensible/desirable view IMO. Plenty of people pilot from behind the vehicle just as plenty of RC pilots control from the ground. But piloting from the pilot's perspective is #1, the pilot's perspective, and #2 the only way you'd ever feel comfortable if you ever got the privilege to control a real helicopter. I mean, I never thought I would and yet I have, way more times than I could have imagined. So it's not completely out of the question. Hell you could find a place and pay for an intro flight. That alone is a bucket list life time thrill that is well worth the relatively cheap price of admission. And if you do that, you certainly want to be as sim-prepared for it as you can be.
@@CaptainHelisim I'm very interested in this tutorial ...I'll stay tuned. I have EVERY MSFS training module ...but nothing refers to rotary wing flight. I've considered VR but have two reservations. I get vertigo ...rarely mind you ...but I do get it once in a while. And I wear glasses & sweat a lot. And I mean "A LOT" My trade is welding & I had to purchase an air-cooled helmet to prevent my glasses from fogging up & to keep the sweat out of my dang eyes. I don't want to make an expensive mistake ...so have not considered VR.
@@MsTheCops Fair point, VR headsets tend to be (but I understand are not always) awkward, heavy, uncomfortable devices to wear on your face. And further there is a distinct resolution difference between what you see on a monitor vs in the headset. And I think you said you had 3 43" monitors? Those are pretty colossal and I'll be honest, as I imagine being surrounded by them -- some are even curved making it even more plausible to create an actual "surround" visual -- and despite their size, at top visual value would likely be less expensive and probably more reliable than VR. VR can have a lot of quirks. The one thing that I think loses the battle is that if one ever dares to break open their wallet for a motion platform, it becomes far more reasonable to just use VR than to try to mount three colossal panels onto a moving rig. So there's a lot of considerations there when committing one way or another. There's definitely pros and cons to each.
All of CowanSim's helicopters feel great and realistic. He's probably the best heli dev out there IMO.
Yup, new H-130’s 66’s and AS350B3 feel great to fly.
Interesting approach to judging helicopters, appreciate it! And I am thankful for any MSFS helicopter content :) I have been flying nothing but helicopters in the sim since about a year, when I got my Virpil collective. Fixed wings are boring! Funny that none of my top 5 are in your video, but that just shows the slowly growing number of aircraft available. So my top 5, in no particular order: HPG H160, HPG H145, FlyInside 206, FlyInside 47G, Taog's Hangar Alouette III.
The HPG's have all the bells and whistles of modern helicopters, way beyond anything else on the market regarding systems. The H135 was just a first proof-of-concept, no comparison to their payware models. The FlyInside helis have a wonderful hands on feel and very good simulation of engine limits and failures. Probably the only models where you can perform realistic auto rotations. Taog's Alouette III relies more on the standard sim stuff, but with lots of details and finesse.
Thanks for the comment! And the assessment on the HPG fleet, sounds like I need to look into a couple of those and the Flyinside 206 to add to my collection and re-evaluate!
Not sure if you've ever played it and it's more of a mil sim but I have not found a sim closer to real life for helicopters than DCS. The way the flight characteristics are, are just bar none. My only complaint is VRS seems like a real problem so that's the only thing that happens more than it should.
@@deekamikaze I have DCS and played it exclusively for some time, up until MSFS started adding helis natively. I agree DCS feels more correct and I also like the chopper missions that are not necessarily battle oriented -- moving loads around on the sling, rescues, etc. DCS's weaknesses are the inferior environment graphics, limited geographic regions with inferior correlation to real world structures, and focus on military aircraft. In the end MSFS won me back for their superior aircraft selection and worldwide coverage. I'm looking forward to their 2024 release with mission oriented play. I know serious pilots are not impressed by this move but then, Captain Helisim isn't a real pilot LOL
@@CaptainHelisim I get ya there. I'm not technically a real pilot either but I'm very slowly building my hours for rotor so I enjoy the realism but yes I definitely agree that it would be nice to have the whole world to explore instead of just a few regions. At least the buildings in DCS are interactable and you can land on them and do loads and set things up even though it is military related. I would like a bigger selection of helicopters as the MD500 series are some of my favorite although I'm not exactly sure how they would fit into DCS. I do have to say that I am kind of a fan of the logistical side of the game and I do fly rotors and the C130 for supply and transport and a full fidelity CH47 is making its way into the game soon so I am very excited for that. They plan on implementing a few things it did IRL including Fat Cow where you basically turn into a gas station for other helicopters. There's also a few SAR and Firefighting servers that use helicopters for fighting relatively realistic forest fires and I really enjoy that aspect of it too
A fantastic and realistic appraisal with added humour. What more could a heli-mad viewer ask for?
I agree with your views on the CS206B3 and 500E - both so much fun and will immediately download the R44 for a look.
I have been simming about as long as you by the sound of it and I have 'made' my own collective which is game changing and have a very extended Warthog cyclic which is fingertip responsive. Having those controls as accurate as possible is essential.
I have a small amount of (very expensive!) time in a real life JetRanger which apart from being one of my all time life experiences, was really interesting. Much more stable than an R22 but asking a lot to be able to hover in the short time I was in it - but very nearly.
The biggest and most groundbreaking revelation I had in all my years simming (as you eluded to) was when I got VR set up.
Completely changed the perception of hovering and approach speed/height. It just wasn't improving on an LCD prior to that. Afterwards, it became very accomplished.
Amazingly, a second flight in a real JetRanger was a lot more accomplished having spent hundreds of hours in the CowanSim 206 practicisng approaches and hovering in various winds.
I really want to get a full motion rig next but I am waiting for the ideal model to become available - it is a major investment after all.
Thanks for your vid, was really interesting.
Thank you for the interesting comment. I'm planning on attending the flight sim convention in Vegas next year just to try out some of the motion rigs. The reviews are mixed on these items and it's too much to spend on a "maybe". Have to try it out for myself before I can invest. Will report my findings after that show.
@@CaptainHelisim you're so right about it being a 'maybe'. How each manufacturer interprets motion based on sim variables may vary and reliability has to be in question for something shifting so much weight and momentum. I notice one big player has just brought out some reliability mods for its latest release... Too bad if you were an early adopter!
@@tasercs Agreed. The problems I'm having with the Varjo surprises me -- it's mostly an electronic device after all and these things shouldn't malfunction after not even 2 years of use. I give mechanicals the stinkeye in terms of long term reliability especially as built for "non-mission critical use" such as these "toys".
I have been prone to saying the obvious yet intuitive statement - "The more complicated you make your life, the more complicated your life gets."
If a headset's dysfunction is literally and figuratively giving me headaches, what am I really signing up for with a motion rig? I definitely have concerns, yet I'm curious how compelling they are.
@@CaptainHelisim I know I mentioned it previously, but I think in such similar ways to you, down to the making of a collective lol
But there is no worse feeling than the anxiety you get with tech that it is either likely to go wrong or worse, if it does.
I felt for you in your vid about the Varjo going wrong as my Reverb G2 suffered a very similar failure just outside warranty. It is a blunt and sudden feeling of realisation that I had all the settings and controls just right and was really enjoying simming .... then it came to an abrubt end.
Worse perhaps was the "what do I do now?" dilemma. Buy another or change brands?
I was lucky that with a bit of 'persuasion' I got HP to send me a replacement. Not sure what your consumer rights are in the US but in the UK, even if the warranty is just 12 months, you have some rights lasting up to 6 years if you can 'prove' the device had an inherant issue all along.
I fitted cooling fans to the replacement as I'm convinced it was an overheating issue... interesting that the screens blacked out very similar to yours.
Oh, and I spend quite a bit of time heli flying over NYC so your 'tour' video was interesting. I didn't realise the Pan Am tradgedy was the reason for lack of rooftop pads.
Thanks so much for this quick overview! I am just now getting into helicopters for my channel and really had no idea where to start. I went ahead and bought a collective which made a huge difference over trying to use the throttle and yoke, but, man ... what a different style of flying. I feel like I'm learning all over again, which is awesome!
It is a totally different experience. Obviously the controls are different but in its base operation, you're really "working the machine". As a former RC guy who did the chopper thing, my experience was that choppers have two main imperatives in no particular order:
Destroy itself
Destroy you
Both if possible and definitely preferable.
So you definitely treat them with a certain respect like having a pet shark. Glad to have you join the rotorhead crowd!
YES! I totally get what you mean ... I had to bust out my weight lifting gloves and put socks on because my hands and feet started sweating while trying to man the controls. I picked up the Marketplace birds during their big sale over the holidays, but do you have any favorites in the freeware space? I know some of those guys can pump out some incredible models from time to time. @@CaptainHelisim
@@MSFSFlightPlans There is a new Huey out that is freeware. It's ok, I wouldn't rank it super high. I think of the freeware models out there, my top three favorites in order would be:
JXT 429
R44
SA342
All three are linked in the description above. All three have some weaknesses but they "feel" the best.
Since you're just breaking in your rotor I would start with the R44 as it's a more tame, stable beast. The 429 is pretty twitchy and you should only approach that after your muscle memory embraces what to expect from a chopper. If you start with the 429 you'll be discouraged, viewing choppers as a witch's brew of helical nonsense LOL.
Thank you so much! I am recording an NYC flight tonight in the Mini-500, which seemed about as tame as it gets for the paware class. I think I've got the takeoff and flight dynamics mostly under control ... landing, well ... if I'm rightside up, I'll take that for now. I'll devote this weekend to test driving your lineup. @@CaptainHelisim
the freeware choppers are junk dont waste your time learning bad habits get the #Hype performance group helos you wont fly anything eles after that
For me, there are only 3 models that shines out - HPG H145, Flyinside B206 and B47. These 3 have custom flight model that bypasses Asobo's flawed helicopter modelling. If you're a hands on "stick and rudder" person, go for the Flyinside B47 - a challenge to fly - no governor, no FADEC, no autopilot, no fancy avionics, just pure manual flying. If you like a fully automated airliner type of aircraft for full fledged IFR flight, the HPG H145 is for you.
The F/I B47G is my hands-down favorite followed by their B206.
and now the 160
nice comparison. would loved to see the Alouette III and the AS350 as well.
My two favorites are the R44 and the Shrike 530F. I still mostly fly the V22 Osprey because... well, it's an Osprey! I am looking forward to trying the CowanSim R66 once it is released, and trying out the Miltechsim Chinook-47 because... well, it's a Chinook!
Thanks for your very interesting compilation. I am hooked on helicopters too. I fly them with sensitivities completely linear. My absolute favourite is (now you will laugh...!!!) The BYOB 2000! I can relate to it the most as a "poor man's helicopter" and its flight model is sweet but raw. It does nothing automatically for you, you have to stabilize it and keep it from overspeeding (not always easy!) But once you've got her "in the zone", she is like putty in your hands. Getting the feel of how to fly it feels like you have found a new friend.
I also have a Cabri that is made by someone other than Asobo and to compare it with the Asobo version is quite interesting. The Asobo is, as you would expect, more arcade-like.
The Asobo Bell 407 has one EXTREMELY annoying flaw (for me anyway), and that is that if you turn the throttle (actually the collective) all the way down to zero, it won't descend until it's almost at zero airspeed, which really means that the flight model is a modified fixed-wing flight model.
I LOVE all CowanSim helis (I have them all),
Not sure what to think of the Schweizer 300. Does the original fly so different from other helicopters as it does in the sim? I'm not convinced. I can fly all of them with relative ease, but not this one. I really wonder what's going on with that thing.
The Mosquito - I found it way too "porpoisey" during flight until I realized that the Vne is just around 60 knots. If you stay below that speed, it flies very nice. If you get above that, you get asymmetrical lift issues, that's where it gets hard to control. It isn't, but you gotta stay below 60 knots.
I also love the Airbus 125! The Airbus 135 is almost too easy to fly, but I'm willing to explain that away with it being a very advanced helicopter.
So, that's my two cents worth ... lol
"Not sure what to think of the Schweizer 300. Does the original fly so different from other helicopters as it does in the sim? I'm not convinced."
Well here's why I'm *inclined* to think it does fly like the sim. This guy did not know how to fly a helicopter but the way it reacts in his hands is the way the sim model does: ua-cam.com/video/VPCS6j76bhE/v-deo.htmlsi=zi9HBCnJ3kkk_bHV
As for the 135, I'm thinking I want to get some time on the new collective until it really becomes second nature, then I'll go hit up a local outfit that does airbus simulation and see if they'll spot me some time on their rig. Like the intro flight in a real helicopter, I want to see how close a Class D simulator is to flight sim.
@CaptainHelisim ... wow, you're right, the heli in that video DOES react like the one in the sim - like a drunken whale..!!!
Great video. Finally someone who knows what they're talking about
The HPG H135 always felt off to me, you're not the only one. It's the only heli in the sim that i can't land from cockpit view. Also a fan of the 500 in the sim.
the 145 isn't fully modeled because its free get the 145 an 160 there amazing
This video and the comments are very useful. Thank you so much!
I have the included two, which I don't fly often, and have the freeware HPG 135 and the payware HPG 145 and the Cowansim Bell 222. The Bell 222 is by far my favorite and most flown helicopter at the time of writing this. I like the 145, and I am contemplating the H160 when it comes out but as a former US Army helicopter mechanic, I wish that more Bell, Boeing and Sikorsky helicopters would be made. We need a good UH-1D/H for MSFS and a good UH-60A/L/M for MSFS. I do want the Cowansim Bell 206L3 and that is more than likely my next helicopter purchase.
Agreed -- would love to see a proper Huey and Blackhawk in MSFS. ANY additional rotorcraft would be welcome.
Definitely want to try the R44 as it is a helicopter that I have flown a bit, though an R22 would reeeally be nice since it's my favorite between the two to fly.
I LOVE the Cowen Sims Hughes 500 but my biggest grip is the relatively low resolution of the cockpit and instruments. In VR, the cockpit and Instruments are a bit fuzzy, the writing is hard to read. The Hyper Performance Group H160 by comparison is CRYSTAL clear. I can read the writing on the other side of the cockpit. The instruments are crystal clear. It is very noticeable in VR.
Hm... interesting comment. I'm going to say something that'll probably be not too popular as an opinion when I include it in my next video but -- I'm currently flying in VR without corrective lenses -- i.e., the scene is a tad blurry in general. I can make out some of the numbers just barely, they're on the edge of readability for me. Thing is I know where the numbers are and where the gauges are supposed to be as far as redline, etc. So I don't really *have* to read them to the number precisely, just have an overall sense of what we're doing in flight.
Admittedly the tiny GPS's are really hard to deal with, having to lean WAAAAY over to be able to set them if going to a specific destination, but mostly I fly for the feeling -- places I like, landing challenges, etc. And precise vision is not really all that important for that.
Why don't I have corrective lenses? I got them for the previous headset and they were good but not sure they really add all that much. One could argue that you're inviting the "screen door" effect increasing the visual acuity of the experience, kind of like super high res TV exposes all the actor's miniscule flaws. Perhaps better to enjoy the overall experience rather than reveal every pixel in excruciating detail.
But to your point, I wonder if the dials are hard to read in VR is related to how small everything feels. When I sit in there it feels like I'm a giant -- or like I'm flying a 2/3 size helicopter. The seat is WAY up higher than it seems like it should be, the pedals way closer. If I raise my position my head is up against the frame of the helicopter impeding my vision. Neither seems correct -- like the cockpit is too small. Maybe by similar reduction the dials and associated numbers are smaller than they should be. IDK.
@@CaptainHelisim I don't think that is the case, in the H-160 there are TONS of super tiny switches and I can read the writing perfectly because it is crystal clear. In the MD 500 I am using DLSS so turning off AMD Fidelity Sharpening did clear it some but as I said it is a night and day difference in clarity in the cockpit. A good example is look at the fire extinguisher in the MD 500. Notice how the status gage is flat, washed out and almost smeared. In the H-160 it is perfectly readable.
@@Bellthorian I can't tell for sure, I don't have the H160. Comparing against the H145 with the glass cockpit and no fire extinguisher at front, I can't tell a substantial difference in VR (perhaps again because I'm not using corrective lenses) but there does seem to be a slight difference on the monitor in the various text. So yes, you could be right that the 500 rendering is lower res. HPG in fairness seems to have more resources though -- they're constantly working on the models, putting new ones out, updating the gear, performance, and missions, their models incorporate more fringe performance like VRS and blade stall. I think they operate on a different level than Cowansim; just being real.
Man in the 160 I keep getting caught in something called vortex when I am trying to land. All of the sudden the helo loses lift and I plummet out of the sky like a rock. I need to read the manual lol.
@ORSE19682003 Yes, happens in the 145 too, and should in any properly modeled helicopter. You can do a search on vortex ring state on youtube. It's responsible for a lot of helicopter deaths and definitely something to be avoided. The fact that it is modeled at all in flightsim is GOOD! It means you will avoid bad habits that would get you killed if you ever had the opportunity to fly a real chopper.
Short summary -- to avoid vortex ring state you avoid descending too rapidly and with too little forward airspeed. My understanding is generally no faster than 350 fpm when under about 35 knots. Preferably always keep some airspeed going forward, i.e., avoid descending straight down, but if forced to because of tight landing zone, do so very slowly.
At at 5:25 where you talked about the collective being attached to risers of some sort… they are, the collective is controlled by pitch change links that push the blades up or down collectively when you lift or lower the collective. The cyclic moves the pitch change links and the blades turn cyclically to get you moving in the direction you want to go.
Fun fact: when helicopters were first being tested, they found that when pushing forward they were going left, pushing backwards they were going right…. This is a phenomenon called gyroscopic procession, where the movement you make on the spinning plane won’t happen until the system rotates 90 degrees. So when you’re pushing forward you’re actually pushing right, but the blades don’t move until they’re in the forward position. Pretty cool stuff!
Yes, but what I meant by that is that the 135 doesn't seem to behave like other helicopters. I mention in another video that it seems to behave more like a pneumatic platform, like a piece of construction equipment or something. And I think it may not be as unrealistic as first assumed because the 135/145 models have extremely advanced auto-pilot/stability features that tame its natural tendencies.
All helicopters have the rotor control mechanisms but their method of flight is just inherently "swash-buckling". Kind of like an aerodynamic impression of Johnny Depp's semi-drunk Captain Sparrow. And being good at piloting something like that is what makes it great. No offense to construction equipment operators and Airbus pilots, but operating those hardware is not as impressive as skillfully piloting a fully manual chopper (in MY opinion ;))
I've not played FS2020 since before the heli update they did. I bought the HYPE 145 and found it very good compared to their free version the 135. Not tried any others. However the 500E you showed looked very realistic, and heard good things about that one. Thanks for doing this video.
hype makes the best helos others cant compare i love that you internet access on the tablet
Good video! Not many like it around, so think it was needed! I'm essentially a non-youtuber version of yourself, with decades of sim experience, and an addiction to rotorcraft. A couple of honourable mentions would be the 2 Flyinside offerings - the external flight model that bypasses the Asobo flight model really makes them shine in my opinion, and allow such features like realistic VRS, engine failures, hotstarts and retreating blade stall modelling. Can lead to a much more challenging flight - especially in the Bell 47 with it's lack of power!
I only had the H135 very early on in the sim, and now fly the H145 instead - could it be any of the assists were on, that were maybe causing it to behave like that? I ended up disabling most of them in the H145, which led to a much more realistic and enjoyable flight experience.
I have all the assists off for the same reason as the point of the video -- I like my sim as real as it can be. The 135 has been criticized for some time -- I've seen the creators themselves point out that some have said it flies like it's "on rails". I didn't really notice anything amiss until I flew the DCS Huey and realized how much more fluid it is. And the more models I was exposed to both in DCS and MSFS, the more I disliked the 135. Thanks for the tip on the Flyinside domain; will definitely be checking them out.
You should try the Cowansim H125 if you haven't already. I think that one's pretty good. The 500e certainly is a handful, but a great chopper as well.
Hm, interesting. I purchased the HPG H125 to do a comparison video to the real thing and I liked it very much, as I do their H145 and after some fiddling around even the H135 which I panned in this review.
It would actually be interesting to do side by side reviews of both H125's since I've ridden in one. Will have to put that on a list of future videos.
curious, whats your control setup looking like.
love the fact that you showed the 10 options, was wondering whats really available on MSFS2020.
I'm thinking I might have about half of the choppers available.
I did a control setup video here which someone pointed out might no longer be 100% accurate because of changes in the game: ua-cam.com/video/0YL3-UnhGAs/v-deo.html
Without physics on the skis, it looks like a stone touching the ground
Yeah you mean there's no reaction to the skids when you touch down? I think you're right. I was sitting on the side of a real MD500 with my leg on the skid and when we started to lift off, I could feel the distance to the skid change with my leg. It's a very awesome feeling when you realize a very heavy flying machine is lifting because its weight is coming off the skid and it's "unflexing". That's pretty impressive. And I think yes, it affects the flight dynamics, or specifically the landing dynamics.
When I land the MD500 in the sim it has a tendency to bounce and skitter around, even on supposedly non-paved terrain when in reality I think the chopper actually "settles" into the ground. You'd only bounce in real life if you actually hit kinda hard.
So thanks for pointing that out, I'll include that in my review when I compare the real thing vs the sim.
Yes, this happens with all the machines in the simulator. A video evaluation of these small details would be great, it would increase the quality of your content.
Great video!
I very much appreciate your narration and your thoughts.
👍
My favourite is the MD 500E, i have to say. Mostly because it's fun to fly close to the terrain with and together with friends. I am an air traffic controller myself, and what i like is that it seems quite comparable how long it takes for hystercal palm trees (helicopters) to bleed off their speed before landing or coming to a hover. On teh Bell 222B you also have to give a teeny tiny bit of collective if you want to taxi while still on the wheels. Small details like that make things so much more believable.
the best are definately the Flyinside ones with their external flightmodel, but just because the stock MSFS rotor model sucks so bad.. DCS is still better by a longshot. And it has physics based slingloading.
Purchased and am flying the Flyinside 206. It is definitely among the most challenging choppers. Will do a side by side comparison video. I agree DCS feels good and I like their mission capabilities but have to say the visuals draw me back to MSFS. The ideal flight sim combines the best attributes of both. Perhaps that's what we'll get with FS2024. We can hope.
Great vid and after discovering ThrustMasters T.Rudder cfg app, 8 months after purchasing my T.rudder (yes, doh). The Cowan MD500E, some of the avail Robinsons now fly more realistically.
I also love Cowan sims MD500 (now my default go to) but also the Bell 222B and 20x Rangers serise, over the H135 helicopters.
"ThrustMasters T.Rudder cfg app" do you mean VKB T-Rudder app for virtual toe brakes, or Thrustmaster TPR pedals? sorry I'm just confused
@Spelljammer1 appologies for the confusion, it's the cheaper TRP Rudder pedals, which I found out much later through another video you could download TRP editing software, from Thrustmaster, which gives you more control over your rudder setting. Rather than using build in MSFS2020 controller settings. Making fly Cowan 500 a dream.
@@imellor711 ah I see now, thanks for the clarification!
lol I skipped a couple minutes into beginning. I thought that peninsula was Lake Eries (city of Erie specifically) Presque isle lol.
The H135 has auto trim turned on by default. That might be why it feels strange compared to the other helos.
Heli tours in VR are awesome. GET TO DA CHOPPAH!
Very good review and nice landings wow! I flew Bell 206 and MD 550 young in north of Quebec as passenger in suveryor land mission. Just hear her sound remember a lot of exciting moments. You convainc me will be amazing in VR. Thanks. Likes and suscribed.
It is fantastic in VR. Unfortunately the VR market has some supplier issues that warrant significant research and decision making. Well worth it, but careful consideration is needed.
As a Helicopter Pilot, I enjoyed your video. Very informative and professionally done. I'm looking at purchasing a gaming computer and the Flight Simulator program. Mainly interested in helicopters. Which flight controls do you use? How difficult is the program to install and operate? Any additional information is very much appreciated 👍.
Thanks,
Carl
High praise from a pilot! Someone mentioned that the Puma controls are the preferred choice for helisimming and based on what I've seen, I'm inclined to agree. I haven't tried them myself but they are complete, simple, and not unreasonably priced considering what you're getting. You can find them here: pro-flight-trainer.com/ Me, personally, I bought more generic aviation gear because I didn't really consider helicopters to be my focus. If I were to do it again I would probably go with the Puma.
As far as software you have two main choices that I'm aware of -- Microsoft Flightsim and DCS. Each have their strengths and weaknesses and people frequently have both installed. For Microsoft they are scheduled to put out a new product next year -- Flightsim 2024 which has some stellar new features you might want to wait for. None of these products are particularly hard to install; the process is essentially automatic. I wish you luck on your simulation journey and would love to hear back from you as to how it compares to your real world experience.
Nice video. Thanks. Would be curious what you think of the Cowan R22.
Haven't tried that one. I hear good things though FWIW.
Buddy, GREAT video, really smooth flying and very informative! I haven't found a single helicopter (mayyybe the FlyInside B47, but it also has it's issues) in MSFS2020 that actually flies like a helicopter. Maybe it is just my controls? Cheap joystick and pedals. Most of my real-life flying is in Robinsons and Aerospatiale/Eurocopter/Airbus (AS350, EC130, EC135) and I found the Cowansim AS350 to be a HUGE letdown, even if it is gorgeous (still worth the money, not gunna lie). Might be time for me to get back into the sim and tweak some controls or something? Hope it's just me not understanding how to set things up that is causing my issues with the helicopters in FS2020! Thanks for the video!
Wow really! I'm curious why you don't like the Cowansim as350. I would trust your opinion over mine of course, but I felt it to fly (as a sim pilot) essentially the way it felt as a passenger on the real thing. Felt heavy and truck like, at least as compared to the MD500.
@@CaptainHelisim I'm convinced 90% of my problems are my own controls and how I have them set up. Time to put some money into my own personal "sim" if I want it to behave anything like the real thing. Thanks for your videos and your response!
Nausea? I assume you use VR then? I have triple 43 inch ...4K screens. They are set up so my head needs to turn a full 90 degrees to view the extreme edges ...I consider it quite realistic ...so much so that I no longer use Head Tracking.
AHH OK. Well then it could be your rig is superior on the peripheral vision aspect which is great -- HOWEVER -- I don't know for sure but my guess is your floor vision is not so good. I mean, for stable landings you're not looking at the floor so much, but you are when you're approaching your target. Meaning you'd be able to land nice and smooth, but not exactly where you want. VR allows you to put it where you want it but at the expense of peripheral vision. A real helicopter gives you both at the expense of your wallet.
So understanding your rig better I'll continue my landing advice --
Because your have monitors not VR, I'd suggest flying "proper", the way CFIs teach you. That is, coming in smooth and controlled, not chopper jock style. You're less likely to miss your target if you're hardly moving by the time you get there.
So, fixed wing aircraft use the idea of a "glide slope" -- you slow down to approach speed at a slight negative angle like 3 deg. to your target and fly it all the way down to the runway, then flare and stall as the wheels touch the ground.
You can use the idea of the "glide slope" for helicopter landings but the handling is a bit different. Instead of approaching at a constant speed, you are slowing down the whole time while maintaining this straight line trajectory. You do this by lowering the collective and pulling the stick back. You're kind of "pre-flaring" which rocks the chopper back and starts blowing air kinda forward like an air brake. You're not coming to a stop -- you're just slowing down gradually, all the while staying on your glide slope. If you drop below it, increase collective a bit. If you slow down too much push cyclic forward a bit.
As you get closer to your target you're going to fall below around 35-40 knots and will start to lose lift suddenly. You won't know that necessarily because your eyes will be on the target but it will happen as you gradually slow down and the target gets close. You'll notice you're starting to fall out of the sky suddenly. You need to be mentally prepared for pulling up the collective smoothly and quickly to compensate. What should happen is that you reach ground effect hover just behind your target -- meaning by that point you should have slowed down and become buoyant enough to just float above your target so you can position it as needed.
A couple pointers -- helicopters don't typically slow down very quickly unless you're being kinda jerky with them. So to do this smoothly you need to do this WAAAAY in advance. Make your glide slope very slight, not steep. So you're starting to slow down waaay far back when you can't even see your landing spot. By the time you can see it you should have dropped half your speed. By the time you get to it you're basically crawling.
Will you always land in this pathetic airplane like way? No, but you have to teach yourself how the machine responds so that you can get a little more cocky with it later.
If you're always fighting a bucking bronco you'll never be able to do "dressage".
I used to really like the old version of the Mosquito that used the AirlandFS physics"?" but the one using the standard physics feels different to the point I have to relearn how to fly it. I still really like it, and I'd love to own a real one (and at 60K it's almost affordable), but it does feel different than it used to. I will say I really like the Bell 222 by Cowansim a lot, and I'd highly recommend it. I just wish the force and auto trim worked. And the Mini500 is an absolute hoot to fly and worth every penny of $15. It also won't kill you like the real one will lol
I'd love to try to fly a real 500 some day. I remember when I went for my intro flight in the R22 the instructor had his hands on the controls and he released them to me one at a time. And I said fine you can release them but you still "GOT THEM" right? Like, I don't want to die, you don't want to die, we don't want to die. Let me have them but also you keep them LOL. I would love to try a real 500 on the same terms.
I've been in a few helicopters, though never had the pleasure of getting to fly one yet, but from what I've seen of them, those 500s look like little hot rods. The fun part about the real Mosquitos though is that with floats, they qualify as an ultralight under the part 103 regs! Don't think I'd do much flying in one without a few hours of instruction beforehand, though
The fly inside bell 206 is by far teh most realistic flight model.. THe hype h145, and h160 are also some of the most complex and complete models ever released for the sim.
The basic problem with all this is use of the word realism in the title, when the content is clearly about how a non-pilot thinks a sim model should behave. I don't mean to make this a personal criticism, just pointing out that the Web is overflowing with flightsim videos where people discuss how they think a model should "feel", then dismiss it as unrealistic because it didn't match their expectations. Enjoying how a particular helicopter handles in the sim is great - it's why we love the hobby. But it shouldn't be mistaken for realism.
I think you're right. This uncertainty is precisely why I took an intro flight in a real helicopter to determine how close simulation was to the real thing. My estimate is about 60-70%.
But there's also the "viewer's" observation from the ground. As enthusiasts in the realm we've ALL watched countless helicopters take off and land and are familiar with their natural behavior. And I felt that some of the models did not really behave like what I've seen.
But ultimately you are correct -- this is the projection of a wannabe pilot.
Well, you dont have to be a pilot to be able to tell that one aircraft feels more believable than the other. I've never flown a real aircraft but I immediately knew the A2A Comanche behaved a lot more like a real plane would when I flew it in MSFS. How so ? Because don't have to be a pilot to have a decent understanding of flying.
In the older days of sim racing, if the car was really difficult to drive, if it tried to kill you at every corner, it was considered 'realistic' and this is how sim racers used to guage just how realistic a game was.
When a simulator was released that wasn't technically hard to drive, that didn't try and kill you at every corner, it was called too easy and not realistic enough. These days almost all simulator developers are releasing their games that were once considered 'too easy' or 'unrealistic'. People are starting to realise that a car that is very difficult to drive and wants to kill you at every corner wasn't realistic at all.
Very true. But a lot of professional car drivers and pilots more times than not say that the sim games are more difficult than real life. Which is good because it will make you a little more careful when trying the real thing
@@Redwood414 yes, and that is true, and the main reason sim racing is more difficult than the real world is because in real life you get most, if not all your feedback from the vehicle through your butt, in sim racing all feedback comes from audio/vision and FFB from the wheel. But the physics are a lot more realistic now, which makes driving modern racing Sims easier than what it was 20 years ago.
An observation on your landings from a student pilot. You should focus on keeping your skids straight in line with your direction of travel when you get below 100ft.
You have a good feel for the height above ground, but nonetheless don't try to anticipate the ground, we want to see a slow but constant descent, controlled and stable. Don't relax as soon as the low skid touches down, keep flying it all the way down until you roll off the power.
Keep it up, I feel the G2 is harder to hover in the sim than IRL, and the weather cocking isn't strong enough in the sim. You've really gotta fight to hover steady when facing downwind, it makes taxiing a pain on the arse if the winds behind you.
Ooh good welcome feedback, thank you!
Vienta I thought about your advice and have a question. When I come in for a landing I frequently approach diagonally (or allow the chopper to yaw that way naturally because of the changing torque) because visibility is often restricted by a center console. The approach is often fairly steep in a small landing zone so looking *down* is rather key while still having the ability to see the horizon. And often in a variety of chopper models there are visibility restrictions but almost always there's a visibility "pocket" at the right 3/4 view that offers expanded visibility to the ground. I find it advantageous to look out this "column" of visibility showing both ground and horizon while approaching LZ using this visibility zone which turns out to be somewhat diagonally. I'm pretty sure I've seen some choppers doing this "diagonal approach" to LZ in real life.
As far as being a student pilot I imagine you're training on a Robinson which has a very large visibility area where this is not as much an issue but most choppers seem to have a much larger console blocking a good forward/down view.
Do you understand what I mean and do you have any comment on that?
@@CaptainHelisim Absolutely helicopter pilots do this in real life, I fly G2s and have been lucky enough over the years working with helicopters, to ride shotgun in Squirrels, Longrangers, MD500s and the Robby's you mentioned.
The ag spraying guys are the only guys i've seen do it, they have a massive dashboard that they really have to crab in sideways (and they're cowboys at the best of times haha) so they'd often line up the landing diagonally like you say, for the same reasons you do, but they straighten up and descend the final 30ft or so straight.
Basically, when you're around the Dead Man's Curve, skids straight. It's tough when the landing area is tight or extremely small (the back of a truck in ag usually) but that's the craft of being a good pilot.
But hey, we've got to know the rules, to know when to break them.
On a side note, the MD500s have the best visibility of any aircraft I've ever been in, you really are in a fishbowl. Incredible sensation of flight.
Hope there's some value in that haha
@@vientayuno934 Always value an informative experienced reply, thank you!
We need a Dodosim 206 for msfs2020. That was the best helicopter model ever in msfs. Sadly only available for fsx but I had many many hours in that. These just feel too on rails compared to that l.
they dont for me, i play on the xbox tho..maybe everything to off?
@wout123100 yea I have it as off as it can be lol. I bought the strike 540f and that feels better. The dodosim is yet to be matched. I fly pc with puma x controls and a custom sim.
My favourite is the TAOG Alouette as far as realism goes
I can see I'm going to have to put out for a few more choppers and do another roundup. Future video...
Thank you so much I enjoyed this simulator model very realistic how do you start looking into helicopter I would like to go to school and are this simulator can help you a lot I like it thank you so much
I think actual pilots might disagree, but it's my contention that becoming very familiar with helicopters in flight simulator can be beneficial in shortening the time and expense of getting an actual helicopter pilot's license. My understanding is it takes about 70 hours to get a license which is really not all that much, and that being good at flight sim can take 7-10 hours off that total. Not a huge amount, but some -- up to about 15%. That's not a bad discount for goofing around on the computer LOL.
Most flight schools will be happy to sell you an introductory lesson for reasonably cheap -- well worth the price for a fantastic thrill you won't forget. Just do a search for local helicopter flight schools and you should be able to find something pretty close by.
The flyinside ones have the best rotor dynamics, so far, in MSFS.
I purchased it 3 weeks ago and have been flying it exclusively since then. It has been incredibly challenging to get good with it, particularly takeoffs and landings. Without addressing whether the Schweizer is an accurate model or not, its peculiarity can at least be accommodated organically in a reasonable amount of time. This 206 demands far more in terms of steadiness of hand and nuance of handling than the Schweizer or ANY of the models I called out in this review. However as far as I can tell Flyinside does not model mast bumping, a subject I cover in another video.
I am hanging to get the osprey, I keep waiting for the price to drop.
I fly helicopters, and I could tell you weren’t a pilot looking at your vertical speed! Haha great stuff brother
Aight I got a question for you. Last week I went for a scenic tour in Sedona -- front seat ride so I could watch the instruments. Pilot kept everything within limits but I noticed he was ascending and descending at up to around 2000 fpm. Also because it was Sedona (an elevated mesa airport) he came in flat at 0 AGL to the runway and did a couple speed bleeding turns to land nice and neat. He flew essentially the way I fly. A tad more conservatively given you get zero chances to respawn but still.
Now I've seen some videos where the instructor basically treats the chopper like one of those big tired cub scouts -- coming in slow and steady at controlled glide slope descent.
And my question is -- why such a huge disparity between "correct" and "in practice". I've seen all kinds of awesome flying and I fly like that. To my detriment, MSFS does a pretty poor job of highlighting the limitations of real world aerodynamics so I have little idea what's achievable, what's ok, and what's "prescribed".
Can you fill in a bit on that?
Well instructors will always teach you to not get into bad habits. Flying like that is inherently dangerous compared to your “by the book/textbook” flying.
Ascending at 2k fpm in a powerful turbine rotorcraft is generally a safe practice, and usually not done for very long periods of time. Maybe 30-60 seconds, but descending at that rate is very dangerous. Those are autorotation speeds. That can mess up your rotor assembly if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or don’t know how to control the disc.
If the ship is still in forward flight then it could just be a rapid descent to avoid needing more power for a slower descent. Especially at higher altitudes. Or he could be having fun. Speed bleeding turns happen often, not much in heavy air traffic areas because it would affect the traffic pattern and give ATC a headache but it could be common in Sedona.
If you are not in forward flight or “less than ETL” and you’re descending that fast you can get into vortex ring state, that’ll kill you VERY fast. Basically you’re getting sucked into your own downwash and if you don’t have enough altitude well … you’re dead.
Knowing the limitations of your craft and studying the POH that comes with the aircraft and flying with more experienced pilots in that aircraft will allow for you to better understand and manage the aircraft in any situation. So as for why your specific pilot maneuvered the way he did, I’d speculate he did so to help you have a fun flight and to demonstrate the capabilities of that ship.
Hope this helped! Any more questions I would be glad to help answer
@@HunterGrayBASSASSASSINZTV Yes, he was definitely giving us a thrilling ride -- flying in and around formations and dropping down into keyhole slot canyons. Definitely he was in forward flight the whole time while descending quickly. He said he "doesn't fly stupid because [he] has a hot wife to come home to" LOL, and I believe him because I didn't see anything "dangerous" so far as I could gather with my couple thousand hours on MSFS LOL.
"That can mess up your rotor assembly if you don’t know what you’re doing and/or don’t know how to control the disc." -- please elaborate on this. Are you referring to keeping the rotor disk loaded, descending "level attitude", etc or is there something else I don't know about?
I have experience with VRS in the flyinside 206 with their external flight model and with DCS. I'm disappointed that MSFS doesn't seem to support VRS inherently or other aspects of aerodynamic limitations, but happy there's anything at all to fly as I really enjoy it, and on the off hand opportunity to be in a real rotorcraft like you I'm positively giddy LOL.
@@CaptainHelisim I would fly the same way as him! Don’t have a hot wife or a wife at all for that matter, but I still fly within my limits. Although I do like to have fun around New Branufels and Austin Tx flying through the small canyons we have out here. It’s always a thrill. The maneuverability of helicopters and the moves you can make in them is actually quite impressive. They’re not supposed to operate in those manners, but somehow they do and it’s incredible. I’m sure your pilot has had many hours of advanced training. As have I and have used that training in real world situations. That gives him the confidence and hopefully the ability to not become complacent to keep himself, the passengers and the ship in a safe condition.
That being said, as per my mentioning of the operational limits, the rotor disc is fully loaded as soon as you lift off the ground, you must keep that disc loaded at all times. Any severe shift in weight on a loaded disc can throw off the balance and send the rotor into the tail cone and sending you flying to the ground with no tail rotor. Uh oh, here comes LTE, and you don’t have a leg to stand on. It’s very scary to think about. Just like fighter jets have limits on how much g’s their airframe can sustain, rotor discs have certain operational limits as well. This also varies with the type of rotor system you have.
Semi rigid, rigid, articulating or fully articulated are the most common. Rigid systems are usually not used much as they can cost as much as the rest of the helicopter. Semi rigid is used on smaller birds like Robinson, Schweitzers, and other of the sort. They’re not meant to be used for anything other than straight and level flight with some turns. You do not want to mess around with a rotor system like that it can get real bad real fast. They’re just not built for super advanced maneuvers.
Fully articulated is what you’ll find on blackhawks, bell 407, large s-92’s, the big mi Russian helicopters, airbuses, some other bells and so on. Those are your systems you want to use for high load flights and advanced maneuvers. That’ll give you the most efficient control and stability from an operators standpoint point.
@@HunterGrayBASSASSASSINZTV I recorded his tour on a GPS app on my phone and retraced his steps in the sim. He was flying smoothly the entire time, almost no excess G's felt other than minor in your seat and a couple lateral skids. At no point did we feel a loss of weight. We were descending rapidly but it was controlled and steady. Beautiful steady flying. I had a hard time splitting my focus between watching the instruments and the fantastic scenery going by. Pilot was a former military guy so he had it under his thumb the whole time.
One of the interesting things I saw was during start up he verbally noted the status (to himself evidently) of all the instruments before and during start up. No F'ing around with this guy. Strictly by the book. Because I sat up front I liked how he pointed to my end of the console and said everything from this point to my side is MINE -- no touchy! LOL. It's a bit disturbing that he has to say that. What nincompoop is flipping a switch "to see what it does".
@CaptainHelisim Have you tried the "flyinside" heli's? I'm not a real pilot either, but in terms of comparison by observation, the movement and flight model seem very realistic. But comparison, all my other heli feel overly stable lol
I have the B206 which is a real bear. I like that it incorporates so many natural failure modes -- hot start, VRS, overtorque, etc. The B47, IDK man, that's a lot. Mr D has one, I haven't been in it or seen it yet but the idea of adding throttle control to the matrix of parameters to manage doesn't enthuse me. Rotor speed has a lot of issues -- too slow and there's not enough force to keep the blades out -- they fold up like a shuttlecock -- too fast and you tear them off the hub. Too many changes and you're yawing the helicopter all over the place and stressing out the engine. I already have my hands full just flying the thing LOL.
@CaptainHelisim I have the B206 as well, (love it) have not tried the B47 either for the same reason. I use my HOTAS throttle as my collective, and can't imagine throwing throttle into the mix either. Maybe on real sim collective where you can roll the throttle at the same time? One day.
You may wanna check out flyinside RW162F that just came out. You mentioned flying the Cabri since you could "try and imagine buying one". IRL the 162F is "only" about $60K. So, not unimaginable to obtain, and you don't need a full heli license to fly one!
@@anthonyvaughn3063 Thanks for the tip! I didn't know he had added to his stable. He's got the turbine powered one as well which I'm inclined towards rather than piston powered with the Robinson style belts. I might go ahead and spring for that considering his track record of flight model authenticity. I saw a used turbine Rotoryway for sale for $100k. Thing is because of the nature of these things as far as maintenance and operating costs, like an exotic car, you can't afford to just manage to BUY the toy, you have to be able to afford to HAVE the toy.
Also, I found a video of the Jetexec here -- this guy is really working the stick. I wonder if the model is like that. That's not at all like the MD500 which is super sensitive. You do that to the MD500 and you're gonna have a sad day LOL. ua-cam.com/video/eW118nqZfdk/v-deo.html
@CaptainHelisim Sure thing! Yeah, I was blown away by how tough the bell was. Once I got used to it, though, made flying my other heli a lot easier lol
I'm torn myself between getting turbine or piston. You can get both right now for a discount, but I suspect I'll end up flying one most of the time. Possibly leaning towards the jetexec as well. It's like you say IRL the price is just cost of admission, lol. Hell, I'll be happy with another realistic heli in the sim for now I guess lol
I watched some of that video. Wow! Those are BIG inputs! The motions he is making are the same as the others, just weird SEEING them so magnified. In everything else is just the smallest of "nudges", or even just pressure changes on the cyclic really. Interesting to see if that's reflected in the virtual model. Going to need to "recalibrate" my brain a bit if so lol
@@anthonyvaughn3063 I bought it and have been playing around with it this morning. It's definitely more "pushy" than a normal helicopter but per Microsoft's not quite right flight model, also a lot more spongy and fluid than I think is right. I don't think that video is showing this thing to be quite so watery if you know what I mean. Also as you noticed that guy was really pumping the stick and while you have to push more in the model than normal, it's not nearly as bad as what the video was showing.
So far, I can't say I'm super impressed. It's cute and I'll probably fly it a bit, and probably learn to appreciate its limitations and characteristics but TBH it seems a little unpolished to me. Really like some of the better freeware work I've seen, not a $35 caliber model other than the elaborate fringe condition handling (VRS, etc).
Nice Flights! Do you use any of the MSFS Helicopter assistance settings? I bought the H145, which is a little bit to "heavy" for my system. Bad FPS. And I have the 500E, which has great performance, because I think the model is not so overloaded.
Hmm interesting. I didn't realize the chopper model would affect performance so much. Your system must be hanging on the edge. The H145 does have a lot of "modes", autopilot features, etc. It's a very elaborate model of a very elaborate helicopter. I'm going to be flying a real 500D this weekend for the first time ever! A lifelong dream come true. Because of such interesting "opportunities", I fly the sim as realistic as possible -- no assists, and usually trying to fly as authentically as possible, so that if I ever find myself in a real chopper cockpit I *should* have a more natural and smooth transition to it. I've been using my homebuilt collective for about 5 months now and have retrained my brain/muscle connection to use it as second nature. So I'm hoping being at the controls of the real thing will feel more "at home" than the first time I tried flying an R22.
At 2:40 where you said you have to fight the helicopters for control, that’s a real thing. The MD500 is one of the most stable rotor systems out there. That’s why they use them for high power line work and what not. All the other birds that you have to fight for control in are very realistic.
I have flown a few of these IRL. They seem real for a simulator but significantly different in the real machine.
You might want a dose of Dramamine before flying the Schwitzer, maybe the Robinson or MD500. From sim videos, they seem quite realistic.
Until you fly the real deal, you simply can't compare. The 206B and 407 are pussycats, the 429 I compare closely with the H145, and like the S-76.
In the sims, I have fatally crashed all of these. The Schwitzer with its fully articulated 3 rotors, you can get into ground resonance. On the ball, you can get out of it before the craft self destructs. I'd like to try my hand with the Mosquito, both IRL and sim, looks fun.
Not a real pilot. The R44 is the only real helicopter I have flown and that only in lessons. In MSFS I have test most MSFS models or freeware as soon as they are available. So my perspective isn't so much how much a model is like the real life version but how easy or hard it is to operate in the sim. I liked the Hype H135 so much that I was an early purchaser of the Hype H145. I was completely wowed but figured that payware vs freeware wasn't a fair comparison. However, the H145 was a quantum leap over the H135 and I loved it. So, I bought the H160 as soon as it was available not expecting much improvement, but it was another leap forward. Your landing tests were interesting but from my limited perspective only a small part of a test. I'd be interested in some comparisons of control responsiveness, avionics, etc., among models in the sim. Thanks
Thanks for contributing your experience in real life and the sim. As to comparisons of other aspects, TBH I could do that but I would be speaking completely from ignorance. That is, I have no real sense for what's accurate or realistic other than the R24 I flew once. I kept this comparison to landings because that's one of the few aspects we ground-folk have any level of experience with -- admiring choppers taking off and landing-- so we have some idea how they move from an observer's POV.
Were you active in Avsim FS9 forum back then?
No, don't know what that is.
The Lama by Taog's Hangar is the pinnacle of helicopter simulation for me. The only gripe I have with it are some of the rougher cockpit textures ( though overall a very good level of detail, even in VR ). This thing always puts a smile on my face doing just about anything with it. Currently also learning to fly the FI Bell 47. The Hype H145 is also a very good helicopter. It's my number two. The Cowansim H125 is nice but is a very nervous animal. If you trim the Lama properly ( spring joystick ), you feel the aircraft being stable. It's hard to get that in the H125.
Lots of great chopper suggestions. I was inspired to get the Flyinside 206 and it is definitely a challenge. After about 3 weeks of exclusive use I've finally managed to get a handle on taking off without veering out of control though I can still get quite squirrely in the final set down. I watched a video of an instructor saying that this is a thing -- in the final moment of touch down a lot of students start fiddling with the controls and getting all squirrely. Part of it is just wanting to put the thing down without excess harshness and looking professional and confident.
I mentioned in another video that for a long time I ran on a spring loaded joystick messing with the trim but the truth is that's not how a chopper cyclic feels -- it's free form -- smooth in all directions. Trimming and centering negatively affects both your flight control as well as the realism. I can understand the desire to keep things generic if you fly other aircraft. For me, after getting enough chopper time I finally decided that's what I wanted to fly and took the springs out. FAR superior experience and I recommend it if you ever get to the point of committing to choppers. A floppy joystick might feel a little dumb flying fixed wing though. Unfortunately there's no joystick you can choose spring or no spring in real time.
Well, I have ordered a softer spring for my wh hotas. I do still fly fixed wing, especially with friends, and that is indeed important to me.
Hello. You mention the H135 was "updated to the embedded flight model." That's not true, it is using custom physics from long before MSFS added helicopters. The other helicopters you tested all use the Asobo physics, this one uses a simple physics model to demonstrate the simulator could support helicopters.
Huh, that's interesting. I'm fairly sure it flew the same way under the AirlandFS side car app. I loved it as my first flyable enjoyable helicopter but once I tried DCS and got a better sense of how these things actually fly I was caught between the much more sensible DCS flight model and the far better graphics in FS2020. So was grateful to have Microsoft open their system up for rotorcraft. But the 135 never felt quite right to me regardless.
when i use the two base helies i pull back or forward heli spins out of control is that a game bug or normal behaver
Are you controlling the anti-torque (or rudder) when flying them? Choppers are strange aircraft that do strange things at different times and you need to become familiar with those characteristics before you can fly them well. It's just the nature of what they are.
@CaptainHelisim yes even full left peddle spins out right it's like at first it's fine then after a 10 min or so it acts up
@CaptainHelisim how do you setup so that the cyclic rudder control input is showing so if I record it it can be seen?
@@thegaminggemini317 Hm yeah I'd like to see that because sometimes things are not bound to the controls -- but you're saying you have good yaw control and at some point you lose control?
The way I record video is to use flight recorder to record a flight, then play back the flight so I can record what I want to focus on either external or cockpit views. You can set the viewpoint to show your controls when it happens, and also you'll want to include the instruments to see if anything weird is happening there.
You can get flight recorder at flightsim.to, just do a search there for it if you don't already have it.
I think what you are seeing and feeling with the H135 is it's Fly By Wire system. The H135 and H145 do not fly like traditional helicopters. Being Airbus helicopters with FBW controls, the pilot is moving the stick, collective, and rotor pedals, and these inputs are fed into the computer, and the computer is actually controlling the aircraft. It is very strange when you jump in one from another helicopter, but once you learn how it works, these helicopters become very easy to fly. It is like going from a 737 to an A320. In the A320 you position the control stick where you want it, and the Airbus FBW will move the aircraft to that attitude and hold it there, with constant automatic movements of control surfaces and trim. In the 737 the pilot need to make all those constant adjustments to keep the aircraft at any set attitude.
Yes, you are correct. I figured that out after purchasing the 145 and flying it around trim released. I realized the 145 is capable of flying like a real helicopter, it just doesn't when the computer flies it for you. It makes sense and it's a remarkable achievement in aviation but I prefer to fly the way a real chopper flies.
What are your cyclic sensitivity setting for the 500E helicopter cowan simulation THANKS GAZZA
Completely flat (0%) in pitch, inconsequential curve (-29%) in roll, 0% deadzone and neutrality. I use the same set up for all the helis.
Could you also share your pedals and collective sensitivity settings?
@@bronzecossack You bet. Planning on doing a video on control set up as a few people seem to be asking for it. Till then --
I have pedal sensitivity cranked up a bit as I like a little more authority without having to swing my legs wildly so sensitivity is up 9% left and right and the extremity dead zone is at -22% so I get to full pedal sooner than my actual pedals allow; meaning I can get access to maximum turn ability without having to swing my foot to the fullest extent allowed by my physical pedals.
Collective is just a straight incline, 0% across the range.
What is your opinion about Alouette III by Taog's Hangar ?
I don't have that model. What do YOU think of it?
@@CaptainHelisim havent tried any helicopter mods yet. I'm new to MSFS.
@@vmfulcrum Have you tried either of the stock models included with MSFS -- the Cabri and the 407? Either of those are fairly sedate and good starting points. The Cowansim 500E is a good next step as it's very responsive and well behaved. After that it's a personal taste for different personalities and quirks.
@@CaptainHelisimI'm just starting off now with fixed wings but will take up helis. Thank you very much!
wheres the link for the gazelle it just sends me to the 429
Looks like I posted the wrong link. The correct one is: flightsim.to/file/22746/sa342-gazelle
What controls are you using? Collective?
I've got all the controls configured -- pedals on the ground, a joystick for cyclic, and a DIY collective with throttle.
What cr headset are you using?
@T.RockTx Was the Varjo Aero but that started malfunctioning after a bit over a year so had to replace it with the Pimax Crystal. Works great and feels better than the Aero. A slight bit heavier but that hasn't affected anything.
MD500E AND MD530F👍👍
What's your physical control setup MSFS?
MFG Crosswind pedals
VKB Gladiator NXT Evo joystrick (purchased before I realized I preferred rotorcraft over fixed wing)
Most exciting of all -- working on a DIY collective. Found a relatively cheap way to create one. If it turns out well will post a video about it and for those less handy, maybe offer them for sale WAY undercutting currently available ones on the market.
Fantástic.
My first flight sim was Chuck Yeager's flight simulator on 5 1/4 floppies for a 386 PC. It was pretty lame.
Haha! I remember that. Yes, lame! But honestly I think flight sim was around before that, for the 286 or earlier. I remember playing it and it had some kind of dogfight mode against a couple of attack biplanes. That was pretty fun for the time. Imagine then if we could look forward to the realism we have today. I was always fascinated with each exposure to the latest realistic flight sim.
Get the hpg 145 and 160
By popular suggestion I picked up the H145 and am putting it through its paces. My early use thoughts are thus:
#1 It is a sterile experience. In the sense that the vehicle is so advanced that it flies much like a "Wonkavater" -- i.e., a moving chair that takes you where you want to go. It's not an enjoyable "helicopter experience" in the sense that there is a large flight control computing engine between you and the machine. It doesn't fly like any other model I have (other than the 135 of course).
#2 It also has certain quirks like sudden sharp movements when turning that seem unlike what a real flying machine is likely to do, flight controlled or not.
I will couch these statements in the ignorance of not knowing what a real H1x5 flies like; I've never even ridden in one. But I am angling to see if I can have a flight in a commercial H145 training simulator and if my fortunes work out, find out what it's actually like and if the model really flies like this. So the jury is still out and I still have a lot to learn on its mechanics and flight model, but so far not super enjoying how it feels. The summary is, it doesn't feel like an organic visceral experience like all the other non-flight control models feel. And to me, honestly, that's part of the charm of helicopters in the first place.
We need a new DODO Sim helicopter...
I appreciate your comments, but how can you evaluate how "realistic" any aircraft performs without "really" having piloted one? Nothing against your observations, but I'd like to see a comparison video like this from a "real" pilot. Still worth a👍
I agree with you, that would be far preferable and ideal. My perspective is that from a sim pilot/observer. Which is to say we've all seen helicopters fly and if we enjoy them in the sim, it's because we have an appreciation for the concept of helicopters, even if we do not ourselves pilot a real one.
So this video is an attempt to match what the layman has SEEN against the sim. Because honestly some of these things don't move in the sim the way we've seen them to move in real life.
That said, I DO have a LITTLE flight experience in an actual MD500, and a comparison with that against the sims is still in process.
@@CaptainHelisim Well said. There are plenty of real heli pilot videos out there, but I haven't found any doing a comparison such as you did.
I would love for you to fly a real one and speak to the comparison
I did! Twice!
ua-cam.com/video/M_9-W065NsQ/v-deo.html
Hey, saw you deleted your question. Answering that, definitely the mechanics are correct. In fact Mr. D introduced me to an event coordinator he works with who in turn introduced me to his group. He had high praise, saying it's very difficult to fly a helicopter, everyone who tries to hover one fails dramatically, but when I tried, I DID so evidently my simulator was better than his (his words to the group). If that's true about the simulator, I would attribute it to two factors -- the VR and the collective. Pedals too of course, I assume most people doing the sim have that.
The VR because it gives you the spatial understanding of how the chopper flies and responds, the collective because it reduces your mental overload when you delegate it to muscle memory.
Still, there's something about real that still causes overload. Although I'm more or less doing everything the same, it seems more overwhelming IRL. It FEELS like there's more going on up there. Like I'm behind in tracking everything. Maybe it's the reality of REAL traffic, or birds, or obstacles. Maybe it's the sense that there's no respawn there. You yank the controls too hard or the wrong way and you break the gear and you die. Maybe you run into a bird that turned the wrong way at the wrong time and you damage a blade and you make an emergency landing (or rather, Mr D does, and gives you the stink eye).
IDK but it feels like I'm not keeping up, up there. But, as far as the controls, the feel, the spatial awareness, that was all pretty similar.
As far as a number for overall reality match, that's really hard to put a number on. In terms of just flight controls and handling, I'd say pretty high -- 70% I think is close? I think you can increase that a lot with a motion rig -- maybe as high as 80-85%? I'd have to try one to see. In terms of mental overload, I don't even have a full grip on everything (I know NOTHING about the radio for example), I'd guess 40%. It's so overwhelming up there, I don't get tired. I get tired if I fly in the sim for longer than 30-40 minutes. I have yet to feel sleepy up there. It's like you're on hyper-alert, extra potent coffee.
Also, I pre-dehydrate and pee before I get in the cockpit knowing there's no pit stops. That creates a certain not great feeling I don't get in the sim.
Anyway, that's a partial comparison. I have to do a video on the subject.
But in summary and to answer your question, am I wasting my time in the sim? Definitely not. If it helps you hover your first time, that's a BIG DEAL, since it's the hardest thing to do. As I said, Mr. D rated me "pretty good" and said that in private to his coordinator.
@@CaptainHelisim Thank you, Captain. I noticed your response to someone else's similar question, which is why I deleted mine-I didn't want to burden you with repetition. But I appreciate your thorough explanation this time. It's reassuring to hear that you believe the simulator is getting me 70% of the way there. My main concern was understanding the correlation between the simulation's flight dynamics (physics) and controls; I'm less interested in the systems and radios. I've been immersed in VR for about six months now, and I'm absolutely fascinated by it. Since I have family near Mr. D's place, perhaps I'll have the chance to try it out one day. The MD500 is definitely a lot of fun in the simulator. I also plan to build a collective lever for a more immersive experience.
@@JacobTJ1 If you CAN book a flight with Mr D, I HIGHLY recommend it. As I said in the video, if you love choppers and the MD500 specifically, this is basically a once in a lifetime opportunity. And if you think you're going to go down this road and become a pilot or get your own some day, then this is an amazing introduction into that world. Either way, if you love choppers I can't recommend it enough, you will NOT regret it. Unless like my son, you get motion sickness. Then maybe you will regret it a little LOL.
Re: 70%, that's my number. I get a lot of flak from pilots who say it's nothing like the real thing, it doesn't feel real at all, etc. IDK I disagree. My mileage says 70%; that's based on the VR and collective. If I was going on a flat screen monitor and a joystick paddle collective then yeah, not remotely the same. Maybe that's what they're comparing it to, who knows.
Unfortunately there are limitations that I agree are way off -- elevated helipads with a completely wrong ground effect, "bouncing" off the ground even with the softest of landings, lack of clarity on VRS, blade stall, Vne, LTE, settling with power, over-torquing, auto rotation, rough control handling, etc. A lot of boundary conditions that are a "high awareness" factor IRL that are mostly ignored in the sim and like I say, if you ever touch the real thing, you bring with you the ignorance, bad habits, and resulting fear into the cockpit. That fear of, "man I do a lot of crazy things in the sim and a lot of things I don't give much thought to... but this is the real thing... will I damage the chopper or kill us in the process?" That sobriety is a direct result of the sim not having fidelity to real life, and I resent it.
But I encourage you to get a collective, get comfortable with it till it becomes second nature, then put it in the back of your mind to go catch a real flight to touch the controls for real. It is the best!
pls turn off all game assist
I think something is terribly wrong with MS 407.
@@zdf1000 yes! You can make it much better with this free patch: ua-cam.com/video/bY3pr-30-ZA/v-deo.htmlsi=6j5UNE3zbK4wzWhh
@@CaptainHelisim Thanks!
1. HPG H-160
2. HPG H-145
3. Miltech CH-47
4. HPG H-135
5 Cowan Sim products.
6. Taog products.
7. Parallel 42 Products / Got Friends Products
8. Nemeth
9. FlyInside
Not Recommended:
MSCENERY (ANYTHING)
Romantic Wings / Beekay (Mi-8)
Cera Sim (Mi-17)
i hope msfs 24 has better base game helicopters
he chose maze bank tower
fs2020 is a fun game, but definitely not realistic
I totally agree
MSFS helicopter are totally joke
I agree
To answer your last question ...My favorite Heli is the CowanSim H125. Because I can fly ...hoover & land it well. But ...I'm almost sorry I watched this. Great landings Brother. Mine are simply NOT smooth ...often ending with the heli landing hard & often not on the H mark. It is a constant struggle for me & what I find the most difficult is transitioning into hoover mode without over-flying my target. Then I'm flying out of hoover & back to an approach situation ...I suck!!! I fly helis predominately lately (1 year) & should be better. I'm hoping it is the sloppy play in my stick. I can move it almost an inch before it reacts ...(an older X-56). It'll be upgraded. MSFS states I have 25 helis ...19 actually as some are the same model variant. I do really like the 500 ...but it is difficult. The H125 is the only one I'd dare say I'm good at ...& I simply love the Flyinside B47 ...very challenging. I'm hoping by now you've got time on the Taog Huey. It is my new favorite ...oh ...that sound!!! I'd like to hear your opinion on it. The single issue I have with that Huey is very unrealistic damage. I fly with no assists & full damage resulting in many failed landings ...but not in Taog's Huey ...I mean ...you can hit a dang building with it!!! Has anyone else experienced this? Diagonal flight ...so glad you too are seeing this & I'm happy to hear it is the sim & not me. I honestly thought it was windage or torque that caused it. I'll reposition my outside view occasionally to compensate.
LOL Huey -- yeah I was flying a tight canyon and I literally clipped the wall with my rotor. Huey's are tough! Just yawed a bit and kept on flying! Just like it would in real life! LOL.
I agree though, I do like the Huey very much and that sound when you're banking relatively hard. May I suggest playing Unfortunate Son as a soundtrack when flying it for the authentic experience.
I need to do a couple tutorial videos on takeoffs and landings. And hell, fancy maneuvers LOL. So a couple tips on landings. #1 are you using VR? Because if you're not, it's going to be extremely difficult to learn without it. I'll just stop with that because I know some people disagree with me -- I can fly NOW without it but only because I got familiar with the flight dynamics in VR. And yes, having a sloppy controls just makes the whole thing worse.
Illustrating the difference, here's me with VR: ua-cam.com/users/shortscNRM8UKN5Ms
Here's me without it, same model same airport same conditions: ua-cam.com/users/shortsYn-4IOrZYdo
@@CaptainHelisim I'll be honest ...the landing you used as your bad example ...would have been my best ...I would have been happy to do landings like that. This may surprise you ...I actually took a PP course many years ago & have 36 training hours in my Logbook ...in an old PA-38, Piper Tomahawk ...I got called to go to work out of province & didn't finish the course. Later, I got into Gliders & have over a hundred hours. I'm familiar with most aspects of general aviation ...but flying heli's, I'm just not getting. I've also logged over 2,500 on MSFS. It is my retirement hobby & I spent a small fortune on this setup. Having said THAT ...I should be far better at rotary wing flight. I just ordered a Thrustmaster
Warthog stick ...to replace this old sloppy one. It'll be here this week & I'll let you know if it improved my flying. I really wanted to go with Virpil to match my collective ...but I refuse to pay over 40% in duty tax again. Last question ....do you recommend flying from the in-cockpit view only? ...both? ...or is the outside view "taboo"? ...like it is in iRacing. I ask because I often switch views to orient myself???? Thanks again ...your helpful & I think you SHOULD do a Heli-Sim Tutorial thing ...no one else is ...be the first!
@@MsTheCops I'm working on a landing tutorial as I write. Will have it up in a week or so, stay tuned. Hopefully it will help.
Re: flight perspective I definitely recommend pilot view. That's the only way I fly. I SO recommend it, I intended to do that some 20 years ago in real life before drones were a thing. I bought an RC helicopter and installed my own videocam-transmitter-goggle setup so I could fly the helicopter from the cockpit while on the ground. As mentioned this was before drones, before RC videocam gear so all this was cobbled together from what was available. None of it particularly optimized. At one point I lost the helicopter in the sky because it was so far away and the signal was starting to break up. It's a truly terrifying thought to have a flying lawnmower in the sky capable of killing someone and not know where it is. I eventually gave up that pipe dream because it was just too risky and the helicopter itself was kind of unreliable.
But all this to say the pilot view is the most sensible/desirable view IMO. Plenty of people pilot from behind the vehicle just as plenty of RC pilots control from the ground. But piloting from the pilot's perspective is #1, the pilot's perspective, and #2 the only way you'd ever feel comfortable if you ever got the privilege to control a real helicopter. I mean, I never thought I would and yet I have, way more times than I could have imagined. So it's not completely out of the question. Hell you could find a place and pay for an intro flight. That alone is a bucket list life time thrill that is well worth the relatively cheap price of admission. And if you do that, you certainly want to be as sim-prepared for it as you can be.
@@CaptainHelisim I'm very interested in this tutorial ...I'll stay tuned. I have EVERY MSFS training module ...but nothing refers to rotary wing flight. I've considered VR but have two reservations. I get vertigo ...rarely mind you ...but I do get it once in a while. And I wear glasses & sweat a lot. And I mean "A LOT" My trade is welding & I had to purchase an air-cooled helmet to prevent my glasses from fogging up & to keep the sweat out of my dang eyes. I don't want to make an expensive mistake ...so have not considered VR.
@@MsTheCops Fair point, VR headsets tend to be (but I understand are not always) awkward, heavy, uncomfortable devices to wear on your face. And further there is a distinct resolution difference between what you see on a monitor vs in the headset. And I think you said you had 3 43" monitors? Those are pretty colossal and I'll be honest, as I imagine being surrounded by them -- some are even curved making it even more plausible to create an actual "surround" visual -- and despite their size, at top visual value would likely be less expensive and probably more reliable than VR. VR can have a lot of quirks.
The one thing that I think loses the battle is that if one ever dares to break open their wallet for a motion platform, it becomes far more reasonable to just use VR than to try to mount three colossal panels onto a moving rig.
So there's a lot of considerations there when committing one way or another. There's definitely pros and cons to each.