A comprehensive bug report on Polychop’s Gazelle

Sure they can. Look at the 3D NS430 DLC that requires the L-39 or the Mi-8 to use. Or sold separately as entirely separate modules or just not done at all.

Dear community,

 

In the light of recent events, in particular the bug report document posted here, we’d like to make a statement. ....

.

Excellent sincere statement... thanks...

Great response from Polychop! enough said I think, let's move on.... and check again in a few months... ;)

If this was the case no one would buy EDs products, Ka-50 has been in the dark even longer then Gazelle, not to mention other ED models. Im just trying to be objective here. But you dont get killed by Ka-50, so who cares :)

Well lets compare those two:

• 
  Ka-50 after an engine upgrade in 2018 now needs the properties of some materials/textures updated to match the new lighting model. They announced soon after that they are working on a cockpit overhaul to resolve this, in the meantime any functional issues can be resolved by a user mod.
  

• 
  Gazelle since 2016 has had fundamental flight model, damage model, systems modelling and weapons modelling bugs, issues and inaccuracies that have remained largely unaddressed since release.
  

Doesn't sound exactly comparable to me.

Well,...i personally did not have any grave issues with the Gazelle over the last 3 years. Only small stuff. I can kinda understand the devs idea of finishing the Gazelle by backporting or midlife overhauling that was due when the current project was being released. That only took too long and mere months became 1-2 years. And Polychop owned up to this very optimisticly judged timeframe and i can easily let it rest and see what comes next.

Apparently there is only 2 fulltime guys atm with Polychop, so things naturally elvolve at a much lower pace than anyone likes to think. Actually, the one thing i don't get is why Polychop chose to not take a hint from other 3rd pary devs and write a piece every couple of months on what they are doing. And i reckon this could be fairly generic and disclosing too much about their current project. For instance, Heatblur posted about various systems of the Tomcat and how they implemnted things, what blockers they ran into, that sort of things. PC could have done the same thing in regards to their new ideas and ways of modeling a better helo FM, how they create HD 3d art, the usual stuff we have seen from other 3rd parties. And that is the stuff that reasure its customers that new and better stuff is being worked on and coming at some point.

I'm OK with Gazelle too actually, except two things. Flight model and some cockpit commands.

OK, I understand their team problems and priorities in their life but, (let's forget the flight model) how much time does it take to add a few cockpit commands for dash and countermeasures especially? Pleeease...

I'm OK with Gazelle too actually, except two things. Flight model and some cockpit commands.

 

OK, I understand their team problems and priorities in their life but, (let's forget the flight model) how much time does it take to add a few cockpit commands for dash and countermeasures especially? Pleeease...

Hey Devrim,

Shoot me a private message or point me to a thread which specifies exactly what cockpit commands you are missing and like to have implemented. We can add it to the list that way.

I just HAD to jump in here.....

If there was even a REMOTE chance this will get added,

You would make me believe in miracles again!

And Santa! :santa:

Look here, Read through the thread.

You will get the idea.

Will be great not having to use a mod anymore......

And thanks for paying attention, I am now and looking forward. and upward!

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=168377&highlight=controls

edit.....Say Hi! to Blinky for me!:D

Hey Devrim...

I'll gather the list as soon as possible and send message to you.

Thanks again.

Dear community,

 

In the light of recent events, in particular the bug report document posted here, we’d like to make a statement.

 

We understand your concerns, the Gazelle hasn’t been supported as much as we’d have liked to for quite a while. Some bugs have been known for a long period of time but have not been addressed as of yet. Polychop has shifted it’s priorities and limited assets towards developing a new module. The idea has always been that the new module, with it’s more advanced flightmodel and other features we know you as a community would like to see, would pave the way for a number of much needed updates to the Gazelle. In hindsight we can all agree that this strategy did not work out for the best as simply too much time passed in which the Gazelle didn’t get the attention it deserves.

 

The Gazelle as a module has deteriorated during this period of time even though some updates were released that did not get mentioned in the changelog. Some issues have been there from the beginning while others were introduced by many of the core engine updates of DCS, which we should have adapted to. The core engine is a constant work in progress, ED has been doing a great job in enhancing it and making it an ever more feature rich environment. The code of a module heavily relies on the core engine, when certain parts of the engine code are changed it might interfere with the module. A certain synergy between Polychop and ED is needed in order to be able to adapt to any core engine changes. Communication between Polychop and ED on the matter of these code incompatibility issues could be more streamlined and we’re determined to put more effort in to that.

 

Your message is clear though and it made us reconsider our priorities. As stated before, our intentions were to learn from the flaws in the Gazelle and build the new module from scratch, then implement and adapt the new code for the Gazelle module. Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel. This means we have to expand as a company as right now Polychop has only one coder, a graphics artist and an intern. Your voice has been heard and we’re already in negotiations with a very promising coder who will focus solely on the Gazelle. With the above in mind we will try our best to bring you the updates you requested as soon as possible.

 

We realize that actions speak louder than words and that we will have a lot to prove and improve.

One of the things we’d like to change is the way we interact with the community. Asking of you to start with a clean slate might be too much at this point but know that our intentions are to be more receptive to your suggestions and feedback. This means items that were previously non-negotiable will now be up for discussion and possible implementation again. To set an example we will be implementing the changes to the Mistral missile.

 

We have a long way to go and we know this statement won’t take away your skepticism. We’ve always had the intention to bring the Gazelle to a higher level. Making us reconsider our strategy might get it there at a faster pace. We thank you for that.

:cry:

Managing project is what I do for a living, and I never saw a case in which developing a new technology for a new product could be used to solve structural problems in a released product. Even before the new product is near completion, the next one is already starting, that's the only perceived way to go forward for a company. Anyone telling otherwise is either naive, finding excuses, or in a very particular niche with exceptional resources at his disposal.

If the intent is really about taking care of existing customers and a released product, the way to address that is to refactor, or most likely in this case, to redo parts of the current code with new technology, before moving on to new products.

And about "doing both in parallel", I don't believe that could ever work with a small team.

TIP: "it's" = "it is", use "its" for the subjonctive of a non-person (if you can replacce by "his" or "her" and it sounds OK).

Hi Redglyph,

We've essentially doubled our personnel and created two teams who work on 2 projects independent from eachother. As for your grammar tip, I appreciate it. Keep in mind though none of us are native English speakers and what matters is that the message came across. Even more important, we understood the message from the community.

@Redglyph I disagree on this one. There are often situations in Life where you really make strides with your next project. There can be various reasons why your skills and practices on a new project really start to take shape and it is laudable if you then go back to your older work and start applying some of it where it's feasible.

PC has stated that the new tech that is being developed will be used to improve the Gazelle like, if i am not mistaken, almost a year by now. Which means the devs are aware that things can be improved and in its current form do not totally meet their own and our expectations.

But, please go critize ED for not delivering the A-10C with the upcoming cockpit overhaul textures and 3d art. Go and tell Heatblur that the Viggen Should never have seen the light of day without pbs rendering. Why not? Cause experience and tech is a thing that develops over time. And the guys who decide to go back to older projects and see what can be improved with newer tech should be applauded, or at least be encouraged to follow through with that decision. Yeah, the judgement is still out and will come when they officially call the Gazelle done and finished bar bug fixes.

And dude, PC have just openly stated that their judgement on what route to take has reached its limits and that in hindsight, a "both projects at equal footing policy" would have been better, what more do you expect? I don't know in what capacity the various people at PC have been working before, but according to their website this i their first project. Quite honestly, the Gazelle has been and still is a pretty good first show!

Quite honestly, the Gazelle has been and still is a pretty good first show!

It was! The only major problem I see that everyone likely agree is the flight modeling not being improved over time. It was great at the publication time, but the problems should have been fixed. But at least that is now stressed by developers so great improvement in that regard.

What comes to missiles, FLIR camera high resolution and accuracy etc, those I believe requires ED work as well.

When developers realise about problems, then it is just good thing when they react to it and try to fix it so it ain't problem anymore. At some point the developers want to move along, but with software products it is more that you need to support it as long you are selling it and technology improves.

But after the product features are fulfilled and it works, it is just maintenance to check against new versions and likely few years periods update graphics or similar.

Polychop has shown now dedication to DCS and not to run away like what Hawk T.1A owners experienced. At least that was all good eventually as ED made changes to agreement that they get the project code if no maintenance is going to be done after company abandons the module.

Dear Polychop,

I very much appreciate your recent post. I hope that you are able to follow through and make some of the best Helicopter sims available.

I have a request, or perhaps it's a suggestion, for you. Please admit and acknowledge that the Gazelle flight model was never what it should be as an official DCS module.

Bugs are a big problem, yes, but regardless of bug fixes if the flight model is not nearly on par with the DCS UH-1H and Mi-8 we helicopter enthusiasts are going to continue to complain loudly and tell others to steer clear of this product. We want an authentic flight model that is as correct as possible and feels "right". I sincerely hope you are able to deliver this!

I promise that if you get the Gazelle up to the quality bar set by those other DCS Helicopters I will purchase the Kiowa immediately upon release at full price. I'd bet that there are a whole lot of other rotary wing enthusiasts who feel the same way. It's not just that we want the Kiowa, we desperately want to support developers who are truly supporting and advancing our hobby. If you fall into that category, we want to give you money so you continue to develop for us.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Trip

Please admit and acknowledge that the Gazelle flight model was never what it should be as an official DCS module.

I'm speechless ...

I'm speechless ...

Sorry, I'm not going to pull punches here. If you look at my posting history you will see I'm am a very polite person. I'm not trying to be nasty or mean. I just want to be honest with Polychop and have them be honest with us so we wind up with a Gazelle and Kiowa that are as good as the other DCS helos.

This beating around the bush is pointless. We aren't doing Polychop any favors by trying not to hurt their feelings. Let's be honest so that Polychop can recover from the Gazelle and sell lots of copies of their modules. I want to buy the Kiowa, so I want to help make sure things go in a direction that will make that happen.

Another video I once saw showed that the Gazelle remained perfectly flat during pick-up rather than have one side hanging low like it should. Not sure if that was ever fixed, but I'd guess not.

There is some discussion of the issues here: https://forums.mudspike.com/t/is-the-gazelle-worth-buying/3987/5

There's lots of discussion of this topic on the ED forums and elsewhere, but naturally you have to sort through the posts by folks who were in error and find the ones with legitimate problems being discussed by knowledgeable persons and real pilots.

Hi TripRodriguez,

I think you and a lot of community members have been very clear and we're working on correcting the things you mention. I honestly think we've been very transparent about the process as well lately. There will be a new flightmodel and we are hard at work on bugfixes and community requests as well.

Hi TripRodriguez,

 

I think you and a lot of community members have been very clear and we're working on correcting the things you mention. I honestly think we've been very transparent about the process as well lately. There will be a new flightmodel and we are hard at work on bugfixes and community requests as well.

Thanks for the reply PolyChop! I feel like that is a satisfactorily direct answer and very encouraging!

I very much appreciate the move to transparency, and I was very happy to hear that you guys intend to continue to produce DCS Helicopter modules going forward.

Now if only I could convince the entire DCS community that vintage helicopters are more fun than modern ones with SAS and Autopilot. :smilewink:

Hi TripRodriguez,

 

I think you and a lot of community members have been very clear and we're working on correcting the things you mention. I honestly think we've been very transparent about the process as well lately. There will be a new flightmodel and we are hard at work on bugfixes and community requests as well.

:beer:

I'm speechless ...

Yeah, especially since that's not only dickish, but also untrue as I understand it. The fm was fine at launch and broke over time due to factors out of their control. But this community doth like their condescension @@

Yeah, especially since that's not only dickish, but also untrue as I understand it. The fm was fine at launch and broke over time due to factors out of their control. But this community doth like their condescension @@

It’s been a looooooong time since it broke. They acknowledged it let’s see it they live up to their promises to fix it.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk