Jump to content

Flight Model Again V2


Focha

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

To "Focha"

The question is not whether they are comparable, obviously they are. But to use the comparisons to explain the different behaviors seems useless.

If they are different their flight behavior will be different, that's all.

It must be admitted that even if the device belongs to the same family of aerodyne any modification will cause a change.

The AS 350 does not fly like the SA 342 or the Huey.

A sparrowhawk does not fly like an eagle and yet they are both comparable birds


Edited by cromhunt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi at all. I talked to Patrick about it again and in the end I asked him if we. ever mentioned that the gyro and the AP are linked to the SAS in the 342m but are there for the purpose of autohover and automated flight and no matter if or if not engaged, that. the SAS is running in the background of the helicopter all the time as soon the batteries provide enough power at the end. We came to the conclusion that some how it must have been lost in the hundereds of forum entries. So for not keeping. track if we mentioned and highlighted it I have to apologies.

 

So i state it here again. even if you dislink the gyro and the ap from the SAS by switching them off, the SAS is still running in the background, which makes the helicopter more stable then others. We recieved the information why this was done and unique to the 342m from the pilots with similar words: "this was done to increase the stability and to give. us the freedom to work more efficient as a fireteam and reduce workload, cause on a battlefield flying is just a tiny bit of the whole action in the cockpit, so the french army had a request to make. the flight more safe"

 

maybe this helps a bit to understand this helicopter. and yes, the SAS has an own gyro in itself. I would have to ask one of. the mechanics how it. is linked to the cyclic and actuators though.

 

I have read all the postings here and yes, this is a never ending cyrcle it seems, that is heated up now and then. I am sure this will happen even when, if, a new product is released, even if people have never flown the other. stuff.

 

as for the efm question. for helicopters in DCS there there is no such EFM existing, according to the coder we. mentioned before, only AFM.

 

Since. a lot was written during the past 24 hours I hope to see some comprehension that I am not going. to. answer everything, and yes, as dimitrov said, we have a discord channel where everybody can join and talk to us directly or ask questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@borchi 2b I am pretty sure this ''SAS always on in the background'' got mentioned sometime, but i can't remember where and when. Must have been somtime last year i think.

 

"maybe this helps a bit to understand this helicopter. and yes, the SAS has an own gyro in itself. I would have to ask one of. the mechanics how it. is linked to the cyclic and actuators though. "

 

Thats exactly it! Please do. Maybe you find a mechanic that enjoys typing this up in detail. If the SAS is engaged and can directly control the actuators and all steering inputs including changing the cyclic's position, that would explain a lot. I just did a short word search through the DCS Gazelle's manual pdf for SAS or stability augmentation system. Neither is mentioned anywhere. Would be nice to have a detailed explanation of how the SAS operates and makes the Gazelle fly so stable and why the cyclic pisitioning differs from what one expect from an old-school direct control helicopter. Cheers guys.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi at all. I talked to Patrick about it again and in the end I asked him if we. ever mentioned that the gyro and the AP are linked to the SAS in the 342m but are there for the purpose of autohover and automated flight and no matter if or if not engaged, that. the SAS is running in the background of the helicopter all the time as soon the batteries provide enough power at the end. We came to the conclusion that some how it must have been lost in the hundereds of forum entries. So for not keeping. track if we mentioned and highlighted it I have to apologies.

 

 

Can someone please switch of the generator and battery inflight?

 

 

 

So i state it here again. even if you dislink the gyro and the ap from the SAS by switching them off, the SAS is still running in the background, which makes the helicopter more stable then others. We recieved the information why this was done and unique to the 342m from the pilots with similar words: "this was done to increase the stability and to give. us the freedom to work more efficient as a fireteam and reduce workload, cause on a battlefield flying is just a tiny bit of the whole action in the cockpit, so the french army had a request to make. the flight more safe"

 

 

maybe this helps a bit to understand this helicopter. and yes, the SAS has an own gyro in itself. I would have to ask one of. the mechanics how it. is linked to the cyclic and actuators though.

 

I have read all the postings here and yes, this is a never ending cyrcle it seems, that is heated up now and then. I am sure this will happen even when, if, a new product is released, even if people have never flown the other. stuff.

 

as for the efm question. for helicopters in DCS there there is no such EFM existing, according to the coder we. mentioned before, only AFM.

 

 

I gave the link to Wags post where he explained AFM/EFM etc. And you say your coder said it is AFM.... Okay. Call it how you like. By definition from Wags a 3rd Party Dev gets only the status of EFM. Whats inside this EFM-container is, with very little mandatory things (aerodynamics are free) up to the developer. A SFM would still make it into the shop. So this is no argument for your claim.

 

 

 

Since. a lot was written during the past 24 hours I hope to see some comprehension that I am not going. to. answer everything, and yes, as dimitrov said, we have a discord channel where everybody can join and talk to us directly or ask questions.

 

 

So you would explain me how the SAS controls the helicopter in regards of dissymetry of lift and (thank you YorZor->) forsee turbulences. I know way more modern helicopters, but they can´t do this... If you won´t explain this, there is no need to talk to you in discord.

 

I completely understand Focha. And I´m close to doing the same. PC, you simply don´t answer these questions. You avoid it like the devil avoids holy water....

 

 

Thinking of a SAS from the 60s that can´t be switched off makes my hair stand to the end. A mechanical gyro can´t fail? The consequences of such a construction are fatal. When the gyro gives wrong impules, the helicopter would go berserk, and the pilot can not do anything about it? Remember, the SAS has, according to you, lots of control authority. This makes even less sense if you know that the Gazelle flys perfectly without a SAS(SA341).

 

 

 

Either this is a very dangerous construction of a helicopter(not impossible, because humans made already lots of fatal constructions), or you are trying to hide something.

 

What has the higher probability? Decide for yourself.

 

 

 

I know, the shitstorm will come over me now.

 

 

 

Dimitriov your example is just completely useless. A Ferrari is a special physical construction for itself? Respect....:doh:

 

Please don´t tell astrophysicsts that they can´t research stars by watching pictures and videos of stars.

 

You interpret stuff. This discussion is about the FM, and only the FM.

There might be people that say this module is crap, but not me.

 

 

Do you really think this is fun? No, not a little bit.

 

 

I´m completely aware that there is extremely lot of work in such a module.

 

 

Here are a lot of, lets say, enthusiasts with knowledge. They see the module. It is eyecandy!!! Really, I mean it so. It is a beautifully designed reproduction of the exterior and interior of the Gazelle. But then they see how it flys. That is not beautiful. This module simply doesn´t fly like a helicopter. Do I need to have stick time on the Gazelle to see if the PC Gazelle is right or wrong. No I don´t need that, because I´m not talking about how twitchy it is, or how far I have to move the controls, or how much power the engine produces, or how much pedal input is necessary, or how sensitive the airframe is to turbulences, etc.. I(and others) don´t talk about the details. The general behaviour of a helicopter is pretty well known to us enthusiasts. And this general behaviour is missing. Do you understand now what we are talking about?

 

 

 

 

... but this consumes too much time. I prefer spending my limited spare time flying the other modules.

 

 

If someone wants to ask me something or discuss about the Gazelle, PM me.

I´m going to stop participating in the Gazelles FM discussion. It is useless. I feel like talking to a wall makes more sense. I´m so very disappointed. So much, that no current of future Polychop module will make it into my hangar.

I know it doesn´t really bother you.

 

 

One last thing. Just to put things into perspective. Just taking into account the people I´m aware of, the enthusiasts have at least 25 years of helicopter experience, stick time on at least 10 (TEN) different helicopter types. Take off weight variing from 600kg up to 10.000kg. But who are we enthusiasts, how dare we to say we have an idea of helicopter behaviour...

 

 

I´m out

 

Fox

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, who are you guys who never have seen a Gazelle from the cockpit or flying it...

 

So we have to choose to trust strangers claiming they know the thruth because they are flying other helos or even better, have fundamental FM knowledge, or strangers who are ALAT pilots with at least some hundred hours sticktime on EXACTLY this helicopter.

 

Let me think :music_whistling:

 

Let everybody choose for himself, I made my decision.


Edited by FSKRipper

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, who are you guys who never have seen a Gazelle from the cockpit or flying it...

 

So we have to choose to trust strangers claiming they know the thruth because they are flying other helos or even better, have fundamental FM knowledge, or strangers who are ALAT pilots with at least some hundred hours sticktime on EXACTLY this helicopter.

 

Let me think :music_whistling:

 

Let everybody choose for himself, I made my decision.

 

Interesting. So the ALAT stranger himself wrote in this or another forum? Or did you hear from another stranger(B), who claims to know a ALAT stranger?

Yes I'm also a stranger for you. But why am I less trustworty than the guy next to me?

 

Think about the motivation each stranger can have. Stranger A, enthusiast, no monetary interest, big interest in correct physics. Stranger B, monetary interest because module development was expensive. A second module is in a later stage of development, so financial interest is high. I'm not sayong stranger B is hungry for money, but he has to feed his family*. Who do you think has an interest in changing the module, and for what reason?

 

 

* which is perfectly okay. Everyone needs to make money for a living. I would gladly pay for the Gazelle, if the conditions fit. I will buy a Gazelle and donate a Gazelle, if the FM gets plausible.

 

Fox

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The AP has it's own gyro and is always running"

 

This does not explain why the Gazelle lacks blowback, dissymmetry of lift and left skid high, right skid low takeoff/landing

 

Doesn't explain why yawing doesn't roll the aircraft (and vice versa)

 

Doesn't explain it's overly sensitive controls (can completely loop/roll the aircraft with only less than 10% stick input)

 

I'd also imagine the the AP SAS system would move the pilot's controls, showing what it's doing, like other SAS systems (unless the gazelle doesn't do that IRL, I would have a hard time believing that, if the SAS is linked to the control servos, thus the pilots controls)


Edited by NixNB

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give OH-6 ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The AP has it's own gyro and is always running"

 

This does not explain why the Gazelle lacks blowback, dissymmetry of lift and left skid high, right skid low takeoff/landing

 

Doesn't explain why yawing doesn't roll the aircraft (and vice versa)

 

Doesn't explain it's overly sensitive controls (can completely loop/roll the aircraft with only less than 10% stick input)

 

I'd also imagine the the AP SAS system would move the pilot's controls, showing what it's doing, like other SAS systems (unless the gazelle doesn't do that IRL, I would have a hard time believing that, if the SAS is linked to the control servos, thus the pilots controls)

 

sorry to sound rude or annoyed, but all. your points have been coverred already a few times. I am not going to explain it over and over again. Thanks for your comprehension

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Make a sticky post explaining these then, posting important info buried in 20+ page threads is not a very effective form of communication.

 

The only answers i've seen explain these almost always blames the SAS, and I can't imagine that's all you guys can say.

༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ Give OH-6 ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add some experience I had...

 

We once add a failure in the tail gyroscope in our 365. Not much happened.

 

We just had the AFCS compensating wrongly the servos and we end up having oscillations.

 

I don't know the gyroscopes that Gazelle has. That is a fact. What I know it that the gyroscopes are there to help AFCS/SAS know the displacements, then the AFCS/SAS makes corrections to the servos connected to control rods.

 

Can you explain the SAS system and its gyroscopes? Or at least, do you have any references to learn more about it?

 

Thank you.

 

Also, can you point me out to the quotes explaining why the Gazelle does not have effects that I expect in every helicopter I type rated?

 

Thank you very much.

 

To reply to those who say that if you didn't fly you can't compare... then why the developers compared a Bell 206 cyclic displacement to argue for the Gazelle?

 

There are simply some factual errors here that I don't understand.

 

It's like there are different criteria here.

 

Again, obviously you can compare helicopters. They may not have the same performance, the same feeling in the controls... but I am yet to experience different experience like in the Gazelle modelled here. Maybe when Bell 525 with its FBW comes out, then I should expect something different.

 

I've flown the R-22 which is a helicopter with direct mechanic linkage to the rotor and for example a more complex machine like the AS365 and although they are different I feel the same feedback from rotor, and 365 is free of feedback, since it is hydraulic connected to rotors servos.

 

I am not saying what is wrong. I'm saying that your Gazelle flies so different that for me it is like a different class of aircraft instead of helicopter.

 

I would really like to fly a military Gazelle, but that is really far from happening and the civil one I can fly, it's not the same, right? So not comparable by some standards.

 

I have to agree with a fellow pilot that wrote here... it's all about expectations... and I cannot expect more, I guess, from a desktop helicopter sim.

 

And also, RL pilots perspective of a desktop sim is utterly subjective. But again, if I saw effects modelled in our modules in this simulator, than I would expect Gazelle to have those too.

 

Dissemetry of lift, roll-yaw couple (even if light one), blowback... etc.

 

Thank you.


Edited by Focha

ASUS N552VX | i7-6700HQ @ 2.59GHz | 16 GB DDR3 | NVIDIA GF GTX 950M 4 Gb | 250 Gb SSD | 1 Tb HD SATA II Backup | TIR4 | Microsoft S. FF 2+X52 Throttle+Saitek Pedals | Win 10 64 bits

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have had a blast in the Gazelle as an overall experience, but I have come to terms with that the fidelity will be different depending on what module and who is making it. Obviously the FM has some issues or there would not be this many threads or upset users. I think a lot of this stems from expectations that Gazelle 342M should hold the exact same level of quality as the Huey, Mi8 or K-50. That is next to impossible for a new 3rd party to achieve for their first project (no offense PC). Those modules are considered to have the best flight models of any sim out there today. With help from Kamov, access to the Mi8 and boatloads of info on the Huey...

 

Not here to kill the discussion, but it does not really move along to something productive. In the end: Better FM = better reputation = higher sales and happier users. So how can we help with FM development to get it were it needs to be to compete with ED/BST modules? Any programmers? RL Gazelle pilots? Engineers? I am sure some will offer a helping hand if asked. It will build a really good relationship with the DCS Gazelle community aswell :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm, isnt what you have wrote on post #13 of this thread different from what you have wrote in post #103?

 

...

About bank angles of the Gazelle a very important fact has to be known. As soon the AP and the gyro are activated, another system is running in the background to enhance flightsafety and an easier controlability of the helicopter for combat use. This system is callaed "SAS", as far I remember the correct name is Stability Augumentation System, but I would have to check that again, which is not im portant for the function it provides.

This system is designed to support the pilots and counter tendencies of the airframe that you try to neglect if possible to increase safety of flight during combat. According to the french pilots the system has 2 sides, a good and a bad one. Good one is that it enables you to fly semi automatic in cross country flights. Bad part is, if you fly more aggresiv you have to fight the systems tendencies, which is the reason why some of the pilots switch of the AP or the gyro for example.

I also switch of the trim when I fly her in DCS, then she feels even more natural to me, but that is just me and everybody has to find thier preferred way of flying her.

This SAS has no real activation button by design in the SA342M cause it is directly linked to the gyro and the autopilot.

As soon you switch off certain functions the SAS is also deactivated.

...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3556192&postcount=13

 

 

Hi at all. I talked to Patrick about it again and in the end I asked him if we. ever mentioned that the gyro and the AP are linked to the SAS in the 342m but are there for the purpose of autohover and automated flight and no matter if or if not engaged, that. the SAS is running in the background of the helicopter all the time as soon the batteries provide enough power at the end. We came to the conclusion that some how it must have been lost in the hundereds of forum entries. So for not keeping. track if we mentioned and highlighted it I have to apologies.

 

So i state it here again. even if you dislink the gyro and the ap from the SAS by switching them off, the SAS is still running in the background, which makes the helicopter more stable then others. We recieved the information why this was done and unique to the 342m from the pilots with similar words: "this was done to increase the stability and to give. us the freedom to work more efficient as a fireteam and reduce workload, cause on a battlefield flying is just a tiny bit of the whole action in the cockpit, so the french army had a request to make. the flight more safe"...

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3591099&postcount=103

 

 

Just read through the pages and saw the difference.

That info from #103 should be in the manual, if its not there, right?

Deutsche DCS-Flughandbücher

SYSSpecs: i7-4790K @4GHz|GA-Z97X-SLI|16GB RAM|ASUS GTX1070|Win10 64bit|TrackIR5|TM Warthog/Saitek Pro Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
Hi at all. I talked to Patrick about it again and in the end I asked him if we. ever mentioned that the gyro and the AP are linked to the SAS in the 342m but are there for the purpose of autohover and automated flight and no matter if or if not engaged, that. the SAS is running in the background of the helicopter all the time as soon the batteries provide enough power at the end. We came to the conclusion that some how it must have been lost in the hundereds of forum entries. So for not keeping. track if we mentioned and highlighted it I have to apologies.

 

So i state it here again. even if you dislink the gyro and the ap from the SAS by switching them off, the SAS is still running in the background, which makes the helicopter more stable then others. We recieved the information why this was done and unique to the 342m from the pilots with similar words: "this was done to increase the stability and to give. us the freedom to work more efficient as a fireteam and reduce workload, cause on a battlefield flying is just a tiny bit of the whole action in the cockpit, so the french army had a request to make. the flight more safe"

 

maybe this helps a bit to understand this helicopter. and yes, the SAS has an own gyro in itself. I would have to ask one of. the mechanics how it. is linked to the cyclic and actuators though.

 

I have read all the postings here and yes, this is a never ending cyrcle it seems, that is heated up now and then. I am sure this will happen even when, if, a new product is released, even if people have never flown the other. stuff.

 

as for the efm question. for helicopters in DCS there there is no such EFM existing, according to the coder we. mentioned before, only AFM.

 

Since. a lot was written during the past 24 hours I hope to see some comprehension that I am not going. to. answer everything, and yes, as dimitrov said, we have a discord channel where everybody can join and talk to us directly or ask questions.

 

Just an interesting find in the Gazelles Flightmanual.

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=192410&stc=1&d=1534759380

 

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=192411&stc=1&d=1534759380

 

Yes this is from the 341, but I don't think there is a difference to the 342 in this chase, as the 342's SAS can also fail.

 

Fox

89C74559-0015-4A94-840E-6C48CD399177.thumb.jpeg.702fd158bdb0bc137328d79743850e5e.jpeg

F02DF9F5-9F83-4FF4-A28A-750D0429ED74.thumb.jpeg.a2201f2a8897f2553d3980ca68ed8eb9.jpeg

Spoiler

PC Specs: Ryzen 9 5900X, 3080ti, 64GB RAM, Oculus Quest 3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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.


Edited by Ifikratis

| JF-16 Thunder | F-16C Viper | F-14A/B Tomcat | F/A-18C Hornet | AV-8B N/A Harrier II | AJS-37 Viggen | M-2000C | F-5E Tiger II | A-10C Watrhog | F-86F Sabre | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P Farmer | MiG-21bis | FC3 | L-39 Albatros | C-101 Aviojet | SA342 Gazelle | Mi-24P Hind | Mi-8MTV2 | UH-1H Huey | Ka-50 Black Shark |  P-51D Mustang | P-47 Thunderbolt | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | Fw 190 A-8 | Fw 190 D-9 Dora | Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst | Yak-52 | I-16 | Christen Eagle II | Persian Gulf Map | Nevada Test and Training Range | Normandy 1944 | Syria Map | Channel Map | NS 430

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you just want some references from the classified manual of the military version? Sure :thumbup:

 

I wont comment on the other stuff. Its up to the devs if they like to explain all this stuff another time...

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay guys..I get that if a manual is classified it can't be posted. I really want to buy the Gazelle, find the model very beautifully done. But as a potential customer I need to know which is the level of FM accuracy and how it is sourced.

 

The thing is I don't have the aircraft so I can't comment on what feels right or wrong, so I can only interpret what I read. The problem is that the developer made two opposite statements about SAS and the FM is seems to be altered completely based on pilot's input and not based on rotor physics and how SAS is interacting. It seems to me that the FM Is tweaked to satisfy what a pilot wants to see which is fine when you put the final touches on something. But the FM on the Gazelle has been completely changed the previous months and this does not create the reassurance that the model is based on a solid physical understanding of the systems. The developer has also acknowledged that inertia has been completely removed which make me wonder: How realistic is to remove inertia? I would be really glad to be completely wrong on this and someone reassure why this is true and that the Gazelle indeed flies like that, because I would buy the Gazelle, so if someone can disprove that, please do it.


Edited by Ifikratis

| JF-16 Thunder | F-16C Viper | F-14A/B Tomcat | F/A-18C Hornet | AV-8B N/A Harrier II | AJS-37 Viggen | M-2000C | F-5E Tiger II | A-10C Watrhog | F-86F Sabre | MiG-15bis | MiG-19P Farmer | MiG-21bis | FC3 | L-39 Albatros | C-101 Aviojet | SA342 Gazelle | Mi-24P Hind | Mi-8MTV2 | UH-1H Huey | Ka-50 Black Shark |  P-51D Mustang | P-47 Thunderbolt | Spitfire LF Mk. IX | Fw 190 A-8 | Fw 190 D-9 Dora | Bf 109 K-4 Kurfurst | Yak-52 | I-16 | Christen Eagle II | Persian Gulf Map | Nevada Test and Training Range | Normandy 1944 | Syria Map | Channel Map | NS 430

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are doubting the accuracy of the module. You have read a bunch of forum threads and are informed about the "controversial" topics, like SAS system or inertia issues. If you want to buy it, do so. A lot of users are having fun enough with the Gazelle to look past the issues.

 

The Gazelle (in my opinion) is reasonably accurate in systems, sound and flight. Overall quality is ok. Nothing more, nothing less. Don't expect the exceptional quality and realism of the Huey, Mi8 or Ka-50. They are considered among the best helicopter flight models ever made. That will only set you up for dissapointment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't expect the exceptional quality and realism of the Huey, Mi8 or Ka-50. They are considered among the best helicopter flight models ever made. That will only set you up for dissapointment.

 

Even about that you can argue. Some of the FM topics which were brought up for the Gazelle as bugs also happen in the Huey (haven't tested the Mi-8 during the last year)…

 

 

I would agree in the point that you can enjoy this module anyway. The point is if you buy it, would you know if something isn't correct and why?

 

 

For me there will be always the discrepancy between some forum guys complaining around and the devs with some actual Gazelle pilots on the other side. It's you choice who you would like to thrust more :)

i9 9900K @ 5,0GHz | 1080GTX | 32GB RAM | 256GB, 512GB & 1TB Samsung SSDs | TIR5 w/ Track Clip | Virpil T-50 Stick with extension + Warthog Throttle | MFG Crosswind pedals | Gametrix 908 Jetseat

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the Gazelle, I trust the forum guys more. A lot of complains but no verifiable data that backs up Polychops implementations.

 

A lot of details in systems are lacking. Periscope sight was omitted. SA342L and Mistral has a lot of guesswork on the weapons systems. Sight can not be adjusted... Vivianne sight symbology is also somewhat altered due to "classification". So there is a lot that can not be verified or are sort of "in the ballpark" on the DCS Gazelle, just like the strange FM and SAS system. Damage model seems also a bit strange...

 

I have had a lot of fun with the Gazelle, but I have also come to terms with it as an overall package with three different variants of the chopper. Therefore my opinion that I find it reasonably accurate if you are not to picky about the details and are more focused on gameplay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

Okay guys..I get that if a manual is classified it can't be posted. I really want to buy the Gazelle, find the model very beautifully done. But as a potential customer I need to know which is the level of FM accuracy and how it is sourced.

 

The thing is I don't have the aircraft so I can't comment on what feels right or wrong, so I can only interpret what I read. The problem is that the developer made two opposite statements about SAS and the FM is seems to be altered completely based on pilot's input and not based on rotor physics and how SAS is interacting. It seems to me that the FM Is tweaked to satisfy what a pilot wants to see which is fine when you put the final touches on something. But the FM on the Gazelle has been completely changed the previous months and this does not create the reassurance that the model is based on a solid physical understanding of the systems. The developer has also acknowledged that inertia has been completely removed which make me wonder: How realistic is to remove inertia? I would be really glad to be completely wrong on this and someone reassure why this is true and that the Gazelle indeed flies like that, because I would buy the Gazelle, so if someone can disprove that, please do it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...