Flight Model Again V2

I do not have any real life heli experience or anything, but I feel that

Nothing personal dahlgren and my comment is not specific to you but exactly this statement is the biggest issue on these boards, for all modules and from all developers!

Nothing personal dahlgren and my comment is not specific to you but exactly this statement is the biggest issue on these boards, for all modules and from all developers!

Ok, what is the issue? This is a discussion forum after all. Would prefer a discussion using substantial arguments.

Ok, what is the issue? This is a discussion forum after all. Would prefer a discussion using substantial arguments.

As I said in the other thread, now is impossible to discuss FMs here, becacuse of the rule 1.16 of this forum: "1.16 Posting images, file links, and file sharing links of military aircraft documents newer than 1980 is strictly prohibited on our forums. Such posts will be removed." So, how to discuss without manuals? Summing up, you can't because is the only place where you can have fidelity info. Now, if you have to say somth about FM you have to send directly the message to the devs.

Nothing personal dahlgren and my comment is not specific to you but exactly this statement is the biggest issue on these boards, for all modules and from all developers!

There was also a real Gazelle pilot named "Damcopter" who said that the FM is wrong and we haven't seen an official conclusion for his criticism on the related thread. So its not only people who feel the FM is unrealistic. Also statements that "the inertia was removed" after talking to other type pilots (as mentioned to their facebook) is not the best argument either.

As I said earlier there are issues with nearly every module and the Gazelle is no exception. I also think that discussion without proper documents is simply of no value.

The reason for my citation was that a whole bunch of people especially in FM threads use it to point to potential bugs which are of no matter at all. I recommend a look in the FC3 Forums.

If you would have told such an expert in the 60's of the last century that (specific) helicopters can do a Looping they would have put out their pitchforks and torches. Today you find them complaining about nearly every aspect of a module and the best is, they are mostly RL pilots, aviation engineers, Software programmers ("such a code change takes only minutes") or maintainers according to their personal statement.

The good thing about is that I'm pretty sure most of them are simply guys with some kind of lack of attention syndrom, otherwise we would have no planes and helicopters flying around according to their napkin math and expertise. The problem is you never know it until they show their incompetence and some of them would be great poker players...

To answer the buying question, you should know it on your own, nobody can help you because it's like asking for the right religion. You will find two seperate sides and something in between.

I do not have any real life heli experience or anything, but I feel that something is not quite right with the FM, or at least how the stick input is processed.

 

It's a bit hard to explain. If you give any static joystick input you will get an accelerating change of the helicopter attitude until you cancel the joystick input. However, when changing the simulated static stick position using the trim you do not get this effect. This is completely different from how the other 3 helicopters in DCS work.

 

Do not get me wrong, I personally enjoy flying the Gazelle in the sim and I am ok with it not being completely realistic. However if you are all about realism I suspect you would be a bit disappointed if you bought it.

I don't want to hijack the thread and we briefly touched on this in another thread a short time ago however I have to point out for the cyclic input a "joystick" presents some issues.

Happy to discuss in another thread, perhaps this one. :thumbup:

I don't want to hijack the thread and we briefly touched on this in another thread a short time ago however I have to point out for the cyclic input a "joystick" presents some issues.

 

Happy to discuss in another thread, perhaps this one. :thumbup:

+1

Sorry for bringing this up again, but I'm reading carefully all similar threads trying to find out if its worth it (for me) to buy the Gazelle. I am fan of absolute realism in FM and thus this topic is of paramount importance for my decision.

 

Reading this thread I can say that particularly the last two posts summarize what has been said. As already pointed out by EagleEye, we have been told by the developer that the SAS is on:

 

a) As soon as the AP and gyro are on

b) As soon as the battery is on - always

 

The part of the manual posted by iFoxRomeo indicates that SAS can be 'cut off' and flight can continue without SAS. Now, this seems to be a solid argument to me and a flaw in the aircraft's FM by the developer as I see it.

 

So, what I get as a conclusion from all this is the following: The developer provides a flight model that includes a SAS stabilization which is not decoupled in the coding process. So the coding in the Gazelle does not include a separate SAS script that kicks in when enabled (not talking about hover), but the FM itself is tuned to work as if there is a gimbal (SAS) in the controls somehow. This is after input of the French Gazelle pilots who said this is how it flies and not through research in the mechanics and physics behind the systems. Please understand that I am not bushing the product, I just want to know what it is and what should I expect to get for the price.

 

I would think that the best way to program this is to code it from the inside out, starting with the rotor physics equations and then adding the specific stability control systems on top of it, coupled or decoupled according to the official documentation. If this information was not available it would be good to know and thus the flight model was based on verbal guidance. This is what I have got from all the threads that I have read and please if I'm wrong I'd be glad to be corrected. I'm not bushing the product but if I pay for it I deserve to know what it is and where the FM is coming from.

 

Finally, I would be really glad to get a system explanation by the developer that includes manual references and not ''the French pilots think its fine''. Then, I would buy the module the same minute. Maybe I'm picky but lets say I'm too sensitive to FM realism in DCS, I guess you can give that to someone, given the level of accuracy which is currently possible in DCS. Thanks for your time.

This is totally my opinion too. The Gazelle flight model is probably build using a relatively simple code in which some of the coupling are either non-existant or way too heavily damped.

What makes good test pilots different from average pilots is that they have the analysis capabilities and the engineering background to take a step back from what they see in a simulation. Even in the industry, getting constructive feedback from experienced pilots can be useless if steps are not taken to compare and substantiate the raw feelings with hard data. To defend Polychop, though, I do not think there are any relevant sources for the Gazelle flight dynamics.

I am missing the Red Bull colors :D

I am missing the Red Bull colors :D

 

Do you mean there is a Red Bull skin for the Gazelle :thumbup: :P

no.

who ever wants to create one, the psd files are there. I only heard that red bull is very picky.

I just wanted to share this video

Hi, everybody. I found some problems with FM and DM. Check them out please.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3756282&postcount=1316

A fact is never mentioned in FM discussions on any forum.It is that the real pilots talk about the same machine (when they piloted it) while simulator players talk about a same module that they handle with different machines.

I mean that the real pilots have the same stick the same general pitch and the same rudder while they fly the same machine.

While the players handle joysticks throttle and rudder different on computers with different computing power, different adjustments and settings, tracl IR or VR headsets, wide screens sometimes triple ... etc.Which also generate discussions on the forums.

How do you want to agree on the sensations and give a relevant opinion on the flight model, when you do not use the same material?

You waste your time, but I suppose you have a lot to lose in fruitless discussions.

I agree that real pilots absolutely reference where the controls are in the pit all the time. This is basically impossile with a sim and may lead to alot of the purse swinging that goes on with regards to flight models.

I agree that real pilots absolutely reference where the controls are in the pit all the time. This is basically impossile with a sim and may lead to alot of the purse swinging that goes on with regards to flight models.

Nope, because that way you assume wind/atmospheric and airframe configuration don't matter.

Right. Once you understand the limitations of your input method, you adapt and move on. A proper evaluation is valid once you do.

Nope, because that way you assume wind/atmospheric and airframe configuration don't matter.

I guess what I meant to say in more detail is that IRL (and yes I've flown real fixed wing planes) you get used to the "rate of control change" relative to a stick position, plus you have feedback from the plane too. I'm never looking at the stick, but I do "feel" where it is when its like a small control input versus a large control input and what sort of roll or pitch rate change that induces in the aircraft.

Thats pretty much impossible to replicate in DCS or other flight sims. I suppose you could "calibrate" something close based on stick position in the pit and if you had a similar stick length, you might be able to get close ish, but then you don't have the correct feedback from the aircraft either.

Also, I don't think DCS really does atmosphere very well, I've only encountered nice smooth air in DCS, wind yes, but its usually pretty light. Never anything like turbulunce or disturbed air in DCS.

I guess what I meant to say in more detail is that IRL (and yes I've flown real fixed wing planes) you get used to the "rate of control change" relative to a stick position, plus you have feedback from the plane too. I'm never looking at the stick, but I do "feel" where it is when its like a small control input versus a large control input and what sort of roll or pitch rate change that induces in the aircraft.

I have had limited experience in fixed wing and R44 the cyclic feels somewhat different to any of the stick input in a fixed wing, the first difference is the very small amount of input needed for the cyclic my first hover practice was more a series of dance moves. :megalol:

Have a look at the vid I linked in your Visual ref thread or in my VNE thread here and look at the amount of cyclic movement it's more a slight nudge in the direction I want correction as opposed to really pushing the stick, that's not to say I sometimes don't push it hard. :D

Thats pretty much impossible to replicate in DCS or other flight sims. I suppose you could "calibrate" something close based on stick position in the pit and if you had a similar stick length, you might be able to get close ish, but then you don't have the correct feedback from the aircraft either.

Some musing regarding Gazelle and cyclic input.

I have modified/customised my cyclic and have a 25CM extension on the gimbal and the Gaz needs just slight inputs a gotcha is the built in dead zone and center detent most joysticks have is way too limiting to fly the Gaz with out constant trimming and likely the source of most complaints re Gazelle control, and no I don't need use to trim. :music_whistling:

Also, I don't think DCS really does atmosphere very well, I've only encountered nice smooth air in DCS, wind yes, but its usually pretty light. Never anything like turbulunce or disturbed air in DCS.

I duno try setting dynamic weather I once had a brain fart an =d set weather in NTTR not taking into account Nevada is some 1900 above MSA. more than 100KPH winds. :megalol:

I guess my point with regard to the FM is that its:

a) hard to judge unless you've flown the real thing

b) Its even harder to judge unless you have controls that "feel" right

And at the end of the day its a problem for all aircraft in DCS.

I'll check out dynamic weather. Is that in the mission editor? Though maybe having it off saves me some CPU cycles.

I guess my point with regard to the FM is that its:

 

a) hard to judge unless you've flown the real thing

b) Its even harder to judge unless you have controls that "feel" right

 

And at the end of the day its a problem for all aircraft in DCS.

 

I'll check out dynamic weather. Is that in the mission editor? Though maybe having it off saves me some CPU cycles.

A dog is still a dog whatever breed it is.

The current gazelle is not behaving like a helicopter it's an anti-gravity device with inertial dampeners on full.

A dog is still a dog whatever breed it is.

The current gazelle is not behaving like a helicopter it's an anti-gravity device with inertial dampeners on full.

Someone should do a UFO 3d model :lol:

Reading the continual FM complaints and the near silence from the dev on anything Gazelle related, its become clear that it's issues will not be resolved. Creating pay modules, as a hobby leaves the customer in limbo for extended periods that break trust.

Might I suggest to start voting with your wallet, IF Polychop ever releases another module.

We are some IRL Gazelle pilots or former Gazelle pilots in contact with Polychop.

I made a test flight with Polychop in Fall 2018 because I had a lot of complaints against the FM (I am helo instructor in the French Air Force and I learnt to fly helos on the Gazelle 15 years ago).

Since my test flight, I have asked some Gazelle pilots to join me in order to help Polychop to recode the FM of the DCS Gazelle. I am so much disappointed about that FM...

Polychop guys are aware about the issues on the FM...

... and my little finger tells me that they are probably working again on the FM...

Reading the continual FM complaints and the near silence from the dev on anything Gazelle related, its become clear that it's issues will not be resolved. Creating pay modules, as a hobby leaves the customer in limbo for extended periods that break trust.

 

Might I suggest to start voting with your wallet, IF Polychop ever releases another module.

Polychop already stated about updates coming in 2019.

https://www.facebook.com/PolychopSimulations/posts/1970712439901069

We are some IRL Gazelle pilots or former Gazelle pilots in contact with Polychop.

I made a test flight with Polychop in Fall 2018 because I had a lot of complaints against the FM (I am helo instructor in the French Air Force and I learnt to fly helos on the Gazelle 15 years ago).

 

Since my test flight, I have asked some Gazelle pilots to join me in order to help Polychop to recode the FM of the DCS Gazelle. I am so much disappointed about that FM...

 

Polychop guys are aware about the issues on the FM...

... and my little finger tells me that they are probably working again on the FM...

Cool, glad to hear that. I think I recall your comments in some of the threads. Any general comments on specific behaviors that are modeled badly?