Not very happy with the gazelle module

I have the MI8 and Huey and love them both. I also got the gazelle recently and am disappointed to the point that I’ll probably never fly it.

 

I had to use YouTube just to make sense of the first training mission. Then after I could start up and take off I move to the second training mission one the first thing it tells you to do is put it in autohover. No where in the first mission as that mentioned so back to google...

 

Can anyone can recommend a good video series on this? I’ve found a few random ones but nothing in depth.

 

I have all the helos, and of them I find the Gaz to be one of the easiest to fly. It also has some unique capabilities in terms of having a RWR (handy to tell you if there are sams or enemy air nearby) Plus the mistral version is very handy for escorting other helos online, when the CAP guys are out to lunch. On the attack side, the HOT armed version is ok, mainly limited by the missile range and capacity. But then again it was a scout helo not an attack helicopter.

Ok then, thanks for explaining it for me, it's unfortunate but I can't really blame you guys for that. What I can blame you for is everything else I said in my post like the training missions or the lack of other missions, I can't explain why, but it's really ruining my experience with this module, maybe because I play in single player and I can't really play this helicopter a whole lot without needing to take the time to create a mission for it.

 

There are other modules in DCS where developers don't have full tutorials. What most people do is find YouTube tutorials. I learned the Gazelle pretty much using a combination of the module tutorials and YouTube videos.

 

Also I think Polychop might currently be working on updates for the module. I think many of the 3rd Party developers are working on updating modules to take advantage of deferred shading. So definitely not abandoned. #6 of first post Dark Lighting issues will probably be fixed in future updates.

 

edit: For #5. There are lots of player made missions in the user files section of the DCS site.

https://www.digitalcombatsimulator.com/en/files/?set_filter=Filter&arrFilter_pf%5Bfiletype%5D=1&arrFilter_pf%5Bgameversion%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Bfilelang%5D=&arrFilter_pf%5Baircraft%5D=376&arrFilter_DATE_CREATE_1_DAYS_TO_BACK=&CREATED_BY=&sort_by_order=TIMESTAMP_X_DESC

 

edit: For reason #8 in your first post. That falls on mission designers. And unfortunately there is no sniper unit that I have seen in game. But you can create missions in the mission editor where units walk to your helo at its LZ and disappear. They are pretend on board your helo. It can be scripted in to increase the weight of the helo by the weight of the troops you have loaded. And when you land in the target LZ that you are supposed to take them to, units appear and walk to where they need to go and your helo becomes lighter (I only know how to script it, might be an option in triggers right inside the ME for doing it too though). None of the choppers actually have a graphic for troops loaded on board either. So this is all helos in DCS.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kazius

I have the MI8 and Huey and love them both. I also got the gazelle recently and am disappointed to the point that I’ll probably never fly it.

 

I had to use YouTube just to make sense of the first training mission. Then after I could start up and take off I move to the second training mission one the first thing it tells you to do is put it in autohover. No where in the first mission as that mentioned so back to google...

 

Can anyone can recommend a good video series on this? I’ve found a few random ones but nothing in depth.

 

I found that in the manual for the chopper which is located in the DCS install directory > Mods > Aircraft > SA342 > Doc folder.

 

Page 130.

 

"Pilot cyclic stick auto-hover button".

 

So something to setup in your controls.

 

One part of DCS is similar to real life. Read the manuals and do the ground work before getting into something. It's like going from a car built pre-LED screen era and buying one that has a touch screen section for setting everything in your new car up, read the manual. You can try to figure it out on your own but usually end up missing something important or never knowing something really cool exists such as seat settings that auto adjust by which key fob you unlocked the doors.

Edited July 2, 2019 by Kazius

I have the MI8 and Huey and love them both. I also got the gazelle recently and am disappointed to the point that I’ll probably never fly it.

 

I had to use YouTube just to make sense of the first training mission. Then after I could start up and take off I move to the second training mission one the first thing it tells you to do is put it in autohover. No where in the first mission as that mentioned so back to google...

 

Can anyone can recommend a good video series on this? I’ve found a few random ones but nothing in depth.

 

Grim Reapers I think was the best for the Gazelle, was awhile ago that I learned the chopper.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZuXjkFY00p1ga3UyCBbR2w/playlists?view=50&sort=dd&shelf_id=5

Deferred shading and fully functional multicrew..

 

that is what i am hoping for in the future update

 

dreams come true if i can have a coop partner man the minigun in VR

We do update the Gazelle as we think it will receive an update and not a customer feels there is an update. Since non has insight to this besides our team, speculations are a bit unconstructiv.

But that is my personal thought.

 

About what we do and about what we keep shut is part of our company policy since this year, cause we learned that we stay communicativ, but we also have to stay focused on what we want to do. Do we want to talk to random individuals that are not linked to our projects or part of the aircraft industry, or do we want to spend our time on products that we want to produce?

 

Just because we are silent for a few weeks or there are no updates either for a few weeks on the Gazelle does that not incorporate that we are sleeping or gone into the blue jonder.

 

We will hopefully soon talk to puplic what we were up to the last 12 month, next to the updates of the Gazelle.

 

 

This was the answer from polychop to my post from 17.10.2018. In this post I have asked the following question: I would be interested in whether or when it will continue with the development of the Gazelle? Nothing is read in the past in the changelogs. Although there is still a lot to do here. Why is nothing going on here?

We do update the Gazelle as we think it will receive an update and not a customer feels there is an update. Since non has insight to this besides our team, speculations are a bit unconstructiv.

But that is my personal thought.

 

About what we do and about what we keep shut is part of our company policy since this year, cause we learned that we stay communicativ, but we also have to stay focused on what we want to do. Do we want to talk to random individuals that are not linked to our projects or part of the aircraft industry, or do we want to spend our time on products that we want to produce?

 

Just because we are silent for a few weeks or there are no updates either for a few weeks on the Gazelle does that not incorporate that we are sleeping or gone into the blue jonder.

 

We will hopefully soon talk to puplic what we were up to the last 12 month, next to the updates of the Gazelle.

 

 

This was the answer from polychop to my post from 17.10.2018. In this post I have asked the following question: I would be interested in whether or when it will continue with the development of the Gazelle? Nothing is read in the past in the changelogs. Although there is still a lot to do here. Why is nothing going on here?

Discord, today:

 

 

Customer: So, the fix did not make it into the newest open beta (2.5.5.33057)?

 

PolyChop: apparently not. i will check tomorrow what went on

not sure why not, cause the fiy was done on our side

 

They are working.

Discord, today:

 

 

Customer: So, the fix did not make it into the newest open beta (2.5.5.33057)?

 

PolyChop: apparently not. i will check tomorrow what went on

not sure why not, cause the fiy was done on our side

 

They are working.

 

 

Any chance this update will include the fabled flight model overhaul?

Any chance this update will include the fabled flight model overhaul?

Hi,

 

The chat was about a cockpit shadow bug. There are not news about a FM, but they stated the will try to make an overhaul to the FM for this year.

The Gazelle is one of my favorites. I have flown in helicopters with a sas like this gazelle has. It seems about right to me. I was able to teach my son to fly it in about ten minutes. I have about 5000 hours as a crew member in various helos and the ones in dcs are the best sims I have flown.

 

Does anyone know of a better sim?

 

My problem is that I cannot understand the words on this thread. Is it being translated?

 

Are they working on this module? When will it be done? What are they working on?

 

My biggest problem with it is the cockpit lighting and the co-op multiplayer failures.

Hi The problem with the cockpit lighting is solved internally and will be out ASAP. And about multicrew they haven't stated it yet.

 

About the FM, they are working in a new way to develop it, that seems to be sustancially better.

 

Cheers.

Edited July 4, 2019 by swatstar98
Misstyping

Thanks for the response. I am curious what you think is wrong with the flight model?

 

I have never been in a gazelle. I have been many little helos similar to it. I am not a pilot, But I have spent most of my life in helos.

 

I might say the engine brake works a little too good. But thats about it. I think its a very good helo. Might give a little more sound fluctuations from the engines. Thats a problem with all these syms. Maybe some more chop noise and shake when the rotors blades stall.

It is the only small-sized helicopter in dcs world, but perhaps because of the departure of the former ceo, there are still many problems left unsolved. I hope the development team will continue to improve.

Fortunately, it has not fallen to dcs hawk t1 to become abandoned baby

The departure of the former CEO Oliver Michel, has nothing to do with our devolepment. Simple as that, he was not compatible any more with the team and the other 2 cofounders, so we had to eventually protect our bussiness and products and asked him to leave.

The departure of the former CEO Oliver Michel, has nothing to do with our devolepment. Simple as that, he was not compatible any more with the team and the other 2 cofounders, so we had to eventually protect our bussiness and products and asked him to leave.

 

Thank you for your explanation. But I don't know why the former CEO leave the company with the BO105 project?

Edited July 5, 2019 by huchanronaa

There were reasons. I am not going to debate them outside of our bussiness, sorry.

Thank you for your explanation. But I don't know why the former CEO leave the company with the BO105 project?

 

 

As far as what I've seen on the Discord and from other sources, it seems like the timeline was:

 

 

Olivier was the lead artist on the Bo-105, and according to other Polychop members, there was a pretty big argument on what would have to be coded and how (I don't know why or about what). Some members decided to implement the code logic for the Bo-105 without Oliver's consent and in "secret", leading to an almost "ready for release" product (See this:

). At that point, for some reasons unbeknownst to us, a bigger argument lead to Oliver's departure from the company, maintaining is IP on the Bo-105 art and models, while the rest of Polychop kept their IP on the logic and code.

 

Now Oliver (The_Fragger here on the forum) is working on the Bo-105 alone, but can't code, so another not-announced-yet third party was contracted to finish the code part.

 

 

Disclaimer: what I just explained is based on my understanding of the situation and what was said both on Polychop's Discord and other places (such as this forums). Some parts may be inaccurate or wrong.

I think this is something between them, and their privates life. So no point discussing it here.

As far as what I've seen on the Discord and from other sources, it seems like the timeline was:

 

 

Olivier was the lead artist on the Bo-105, and according to other Polychop members, there was a pretty big argument on what would have to be coded and how (I don't know why or about what). Some members decided to implement the code logic for the Bo-105 without Oliver's consent and in "secret", leading to an almost "ready for release" product (See this:

). At that point, for some reasons unbeknownst to us, a bigger argument lead to Oliver's departure from the company, maintaining is IP on the Bo-105 art and models, while the rest of Polychop kept their IP on the logic and code.

 

Now Oliver (The_Fragger here on the forum) is working on the Bo-105 alone, but can't code, so another not-announced-yet third party was contracted to finish the code part.

 

 

Disclaimer: what I just explained is based on my understanding of the situation and what was said both on Polychop's Discord and other places (such as this forums). Some parts may be inaccurate or wrong.

According to your post, I speculate that Olivier will leave the company because of the dispute with other members of the company during the development of bo105, perhaps because the company wants to sell the bo105 as soon as possible, but olivier has different opinions, but olivier found him after leaving the company. Can not complete bo105 alone, but had a third-party cooperation to set up a company to cooperate in research and development bo105

If non-olivier leaves the company, bo105 should already be on sale.

Edited July 8, 2019 by huchanronaa

1.5 Any and all Off Topic posts will be deleted without notice. Posts should be on topic based on the thread title, and threads should on topic based on the Forum section they are posted in. Posts that are attempts to hijack, troll, or ask questions that have been answered already will also be considered OT and removed. Repeat offenders may receive warnings.

@notporplayer3:

The switches of the encrypted radio are not done, cause this system is classified and we have no access to informations about this encrypted system. In addition, even if we would have informations, we would not build such encrypted classified systems, cause we dis never seek for any lawsuit with any military. Therefore we are sorry, but we are certain, that you will be able to comprehend our decision.

 

IMHO Eagle Dynamics should invent a own secure systems that all other modules would use.

 

We all know the principles what encrypted radios work, not the keys or algorithm's. You can even know this from public sources from manufacturers.

 

We all know how IFF system works the modes, but not the keys or algorithm's etc. Again this is public information.

 

We do not need the complex programming, simulation etc in those systems, not at all. We do not need to know how exactly "black box" works.

 

What we know is that when meat goes in from one end, sausage comes out from the other. And that to be modeled, not what happens inside the meat grinder.

 

Same thing with airports. We know there is administration, security, car rentals services, hotels, cleaning crew etc etc etc. None of those are required to be simulated to have a operational airports with ATC for simulator.

 

ED would just invent something own, based the principles and share it.

That would be far better than anything not working at all.

 

One can walk to library and get a books meant for radio encryption designs for universities etc. Use all that to make the basic model and that is it.

 

As those systems are like public encryption systems, the design and even algorithm is not secret, decryption keys are.

IMHO Eagle Dynamics should invent a own secure systems that all other modules would use.

 

We all know the principles what encrypted radios work, not the keys or algorithm's. You can even know this from public sources from manufacturers.

 

We all know how IFF system works the modes, but not the keys or algorithm's etc. Again this is public information.

 

We do not need the complex programming, simulation etc in those systems, not at all. We do not need to know how exactly "black box" works.

 

What we know is that when meat goes in from one end, sausage comes out from the other. And that to be modeled, not what happens inside the meat grinder.

 

Same thing with airports. We know there is administration, security, car rentals services, hotels, cleaning crew etc etc etc. None of those are required to be simulated to have a operational airports with ATC for simulator.

 

ED would just invent something own, based the principles and share it.

That would be far better than anything not working at all.

 

One can walk to library and get a books meant for radio encryption designs for universities etc. Use all that to make the basic model and that is it.

 

As those systems are like public encryption systems, the design and even algorithm is not secret, decryption keys are.

Even if the data is public, the armies and the manufacturers will not be really happy about this being modeled.

Even if the data is public, the armies and the manufacturers will not be really happy about this being modeled.

 

As much as you model their vehicles or you model their weapons....

 

I am taking about black box, not the very specific things.

 

You don't need to simulate encryption to have encrypted radio in DCS.

The departure of the former CEO Oliver Michel, has nothing to do with our devolepment. Simple as that, he was not compatible any more with the team and the other 2 cofounders, so we had to eventually protect our bussiness and products and asked him to leave.

 

I do not think, that a new CEO of a Company should start slandering a previous Partner in public.

Truth was completely different. Oliver knows it, I know it.

I am sure, you are missing the required level of selfdeflection, to notice yourself.

Your remaining Partner is a complete misery to me. I do not understand, how you are able, to force him, sticking with you. If you were the one, leaving PC, the product would be much better now.

I am sure, the 105 will come some day, but to come back to the Topic: I am also sure, you will never improve your product. Some stuff is off your Limits, some stuff would require the will, to improve ones product.

I do not think, that a new CEO of a Company should start slandering a previous Partner in public.

Truth was completely different. Oliver knows it, I know it.

I am sure, you are missing the required level of selfdeflection, to notice yourself.

Your remaining Partner is a complete misery to me. I do not understand, how you are able, to force him, sticking with you. If you were the one, leaving PC, the product would be much better now.

I am sure, the 105 will come some day, but to come back to the Topic: I am also sure, you will never improve your product. Some stuff is off your Limits, some stuff would require the will, to improve ones product.

Someone has a case of the Monday's...