Little note about the FM from the devs

No, please wait for the pilot feedback.

 

I really don't understand the above, why take word from people that never flown a gazelle while you can have an answer from the guys that fly the exact version that is modeled....

 

I don't want a module that feels right, I want a module that is right....

I think this is really the sentiment, yes I understand there seem to be and it might be FM or just catching out of limit events and the software flipping control inputs AKA those that can fly upside down mmmph can't get there yet. To me if I fly the Gazelle within well to the extents of said flight envelope,.. :music_whistling: it seems to fly fine but I'm no RL pilot.

I do look at the Gazelle as a glass half full it's a demanding bi-itch but flies great, I can understand the sentiment of "but there are issues so meh" and largely those don't subtract from such a fun model to fly as far as I am concerned.

I'd also not like any changes to be "by popular demand" but refinement of the FM, as best we can.

Thanks Polychop, can we go back and have some fun flying the Gazelle now? :thumbup:

Thats not my point.

 

The point is:

 

X chopper has flaws: I´m not going to fly it. What a crap ¡¡¡

 

Y chopper has flaws: i´m flying, its fine.

 

And YES. Beeing able to OVERHEAT the Hueys engine HOURS is at the same level of "nosense" and nobody is arguing about stop flying it.

 

So enjoy what we have and let developers do they job.

BST will add overheat model to Huey. Will Polychop do new FM?

You give time to BST to improve the Huey but not to Polychop with the Gazelle.

Fair, isn It?

You give time to BST to improve the Huey but not to Polychop with the Gazelle.

 

Fair, isn It?

Fair, I was planned to give Polychop time untill at least Bo-105 early access, but few humanoids on russian forum begin discussting with me, and thats why im record those video tests now:music_whistling:

You give time to BST to improve the Huey but not to Polychop with the Gazelle.

 

Fair, isn It?

:thumbup: +1

Patience this software isn't point and click, I'm sure all of ED will get better moving forward.

The two main problems i see in all these topics is the missing negative G limit and missing feedback from events like firing a missile or input changes. No assistance system can react without a small delay.

If the Gazelle flies like it does in the sim, the FM is 95% done.

It has to loose the UFO like behavior, completely detached from the world around it. All the other things should be gone as soon as it gets a G limit

There is a big difference between us being told that PolyChop were told by a real Gazelle pilot that in his/her opinion it feels right, and it actually being right.

 

Beside that, what I'm focusing on here is the stuff that is not a matter of opinion but plain facts and physics. VRS recovery via increasing collective is not a matter of opinion, and neither is the helicopter staying level with neutral cyclic when there are two missiles on one side and none on the other.

Yes but do you know the exact behavior in case off unbalanced load ? Should the SAS/AP correct it ? To what extent ? If not how much do the pilot need to compensate ?

This is why we need real pilot feedback, not to find the obvious flaws, but to know how to realistically correct them.

Yes but do you know the exact behavior in case off unbalanced load ? Should the SAS/AP correct it ? To what extent ? If not how much do the pilot need to compensate ?

 

This is why we need real pilot feedback, not to find the obvious flaws, but to know how to realistically correct them.

I know how it be

Yes but do you know the exact behavior in case off unbalanced load ? Should the SAS/AP correct it ? To what extent ? If not how much do the pilot need to compensate ?

 

This is why we need real pilot feedback, not to find the obvious flaws, but to know how to realistically correct them.

My take on SAP/AP is that it actually tries to interpret what you want the aircraft to to do, not necessarily what the aircraft should do and most of the time it seems to do it well. Sometimes pilot just gets it all wrong, others meh.

:thumbup:

I know how it be

I would like to know how you know this ;).

I confess I am surprised to see this. I actually had a look at some real Gazelle flight displays on Youtube to see if the professionals get it inverted. Didn't see any.

 

But this picture does not tell us if this is a stable inversion or "just" a short roll. The DCS videos here show Gazelles doing entire approaches while inverted and I doubt that this is possible with a real one.

You will never be able to sustain inverted flight in the gaz as it has a flexible head on it, and you have to be very careful and keep positive pitch whilst inverted otherwise you will lose the tail boom. This is wayyy outside the envelope for this aircraft. You pick a very safe height, reduce speed to 40 kts ish with 20-40 degrees nose up and when you feel very brave (or is that stupid) roll the aircraft 180 degrees and hold positive pitch as it falls thru the vertical and exit the move heading back the way you came in time for tea and medals and a change of underwear. :pilotfly:

You will never be able to sustain inverted flight in the gaz as it has a flexible head on it, and you have to be very careful and keep positive pitch whilst inverted otherwise you will lose the tail boom. This is wayyy outside the envelope for this aircraft. You pick a very safe height, reduce speed to 40 kts ish with 20-40 degrees nose up and when you feel very brave (or is that stupid) roll the aircraft 180 degrees and hold positive pitch as it falls thru the vertical and exit the move heading back the way you came in time for tea and medals and a change of underwear. :pilotfly:

:thumbup: How many more Gazelles can I break. :lol:

<edit>

wrong post,..

And this isn"t UFOish :thumbup: No really it works for me, no pedal input, FTW

<edit>

This made me giddy, no pedals Gazelle take off and land

This is the part that worries me.

 

At the moment what we can state is, that the SA342M Gazelle in the game flys very close to what the real thing is like.

 

Polychop Team

"close to the real thing" when it has no translational lift, no torque reaction at speed and no inherent instability at speed.

It is rock solid, "on rails" without pilot or AP input.

No helicopter can do this.

..

Gents, I think with a little more patience, Polychop will get their act together now that all the fuss is over and sort the outstanding problems with the FM. Well let's hope so :pilotfly:

Gents, I think with a little more patience, Polychop will get their act together now that all the fuss is over and sort the outstanding problems with the FM. Well let's hope so :pilotfly:

THIS ^

I am fully willing to give them more than a year (in ED time) to fix it but they have never acknowledged the problem. They just keep saying that "our real pilot says it is right" and that's all. Give it or take it.

If you don't acknowledge that there is a problem, there is no ETA for said problem to be fixed. Just saying.

And now that they are breaking up and even in a bad way I wonder what the future of the Gazelle will be.

Everything aside... Please, fix this. And fix it fast. :P

There is a big difference between us being told that PolyChop were told by a real Gazelle pilot that in his/her opinion it feels right, and......

r.

. I don't really understand why, Poly doesn't delete everything and restart from scratch with advisors chosen here...In ED forum....

Plenty of aeronautical experts, Gazelle Pilots around as I can see.

Asset: A "stable" inversion? You are not mistaking RC world with real world right? Because there is nothing like a stable inversion for a helicopter. The only time you'll see one inverted will be during barrel roll.

That was exactly what I was pointing at. I've seen real life videos of Bo105s doing a roll, but I have never seen a Gazelle doing it. When I say "stable" inversion I mean the flight displays some people posted here from DCS where they fly their Gazelle inverted for 10+ seconds. I know of no manned helicopter that can do that.

My bottom line was always: Real life Bo105 can do more acrobatics than Gazelle and no real helo on earth can do what is possible in DCS.

That was exactly what I was pointing at. I've seen real life videos of Bo105s doing a roll, but I have never seen a Gazelle doing it. When I say "stable" inversion I mean the flight displays some people posted here from DCS where they fly their Gazelle inverted for 10+ seconds. I know of no manned helicopter that can do that.

My bottom line was always: Real life Bo105 can do more acrobatics than Gazelle and no real helo on earth can do what is possible in DCS.

Back in the 19th Century someone once said that a man will never be able to fly. Only until Wright brothers proved them wrong. I would never say never. And finiding evidence on whether this is possible or not is hard because; it would be a risky manoeuvre to perform in a helicopter that was never designed to do it. And currently no "KNOWN" helicopter has been designed to do it.

Seeing all these armchair pro`s here is really funny I have to admit. Look how everyone all of a sudden got smart here. Fact is you are all amateurs (maybe you fly a Cessna?) that pretend to be who you are not. Anyone here has a paper in flight engineering, or even flies real aircraft?

It is not wrong to argue with a dev, it is not wrong to discuss. But the manners presented in this thread are downright ridiculous. Most of you who are stubborn here should know that you could improve your social skills. One doesn`t go to a dev who has qualified members within the aeronautics community and tell them stuff like: "Per my above suggestion might I recommend you enter into PRIVATE conversation with the following forum members and listen to them with a receptive and open mind."

Many here could learn a thing or two, please be humble and communicate others with the respect you yourself would like to earn. For you it maybe a simple fix because you "think so" (and there is a lot of those "I think" in this thread), but as a dev they have something called quality assurance.

Just so you know, there already was a real Gazelle pilot in these forums and he was not of the sort who bragged about it. Yet he got called out by immature armchair pro`s who had nothing but their own belief, and gave up. You don`t need to repeat the story. Think over what you say and to who you say it. Hope we can bring the tone of this discussion to a level which is a little above current.

No, everyone here have better knowledge in how the gazelle fly than ALAT SA-342M instructor and combat pilots.

We don't need their answers as they don't understand how the gazelle should fly.

We, airchair pilots, think we know how the helicopter should fly and that is better that asking someone who knows.

zerO_crash you do many of the members of this community a great disservice by underestimating their intelligence, knowledge, and experience.

I apologize for coming off as abrasive or flip. I am a polite person in general, but suffering the ill effects of frustration.

As such I am bowing out of this conversation as well as any/all further conversations about the Gazelle flight model.

zerO_crash you do many of the members of this community a great disservice by underestimating their intelligence, knowledge, and experience.

 

I apologize for coming off as abrasive or flip. I am a polite person in general, but suffering the ill effects of frustration.

 

As such I am bowing out of this conversation as well as any/all further conversations about the Gazelle flight model.

I never wanted you out of it, don`t make me come off wrong. But a nicer tone would be appreciated. And I do believe you are a nice guy, just take it easy, don`t stress about it, present your evidence and wait for the dev to respond. Maybe they won`t, but they surely see the responses in forums and consider them.

For the record, I not so much underestimate people, as I see people making a lot of assumptions based on their limited view. If you look at how aircraft are built, even nowadays, there are people who have been buildings planes for 30+ years (helped), and they still run windtunnel tests to rule out anything they might not have noticed or known about. There are many effects in aviation that have been figured out only by trail and error with lives getting lost. All I am saying is that theory is one thing, but practice is something else.

Even the Bo 105 is only cleared for -1 g, with its solid rotor. I've had the Gazelle to -3.6 g, which is more than the Bo 105 positive g limit.

The damage model should prevent this sort of unrealistic behaviour, but it's simply not good enough.

Despite being shown the Gazelle doing the most bizarre manoeuvres, the devs keep insisting that the Gazelle is "close to the real thing"

This is the most frustrating thing.

..