Credit where credit is due.

[Gizmokev]

Done.......peace and quiet from here on in...... :D:D

[MAXsenna]

Here we go again, this thread is about something completely different. The mods already shut down one thread..

 

Put the guys on your ignore list if you want but don't feed them, it'll only get worse.

It's sometimes fun to read though. A bunch of non-pilots trying to discourage people from buying the Kiowa. 's gotta be braking some rules there I suppose.

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Adam]

So I’ve just changed my axis settings to some I saw on YouTube when Casmo.tv tested the Gazelle a few weeks ago. Now I was to be fair quite dubious that this would make much of a difference, and I will freely admit that I have never been able to get on with the Gazelle, and thought it was quite a poor helo within the DCS world.

 

I WAS WRONG

 

I hold my hands up, I apologise now to the Polychop Devs. I couldn’t have been more wrong.

 

Now is the FM realistic, honestly I’ve no idea, I’ve never flown in a gazelle, but I do see some real world pilots including one with a fair few 1000 hrs of the airframe, stating that actually it is, and I must say with the axis settings I put in from the YouTube vid, damn it flew amazingly well.

 

I’ve just flown Nap from Damascus to Beruit in the new Syria map, and I will state here and now, not only was it the best helo experience I’ve ever had in DCS, it might also have been the best experience I’ve had in this sim full stop.

 

Controversial I know, and honestly I’m as surprised as anyone else, but damn once you get your hardware dialled in correctly, this module is in a league of its own. I can’t wait for the Kiowa.

 

 

Thankyou Devs, Thankyou for sticking with us, through all the hate and negativity.

 

Whatever I can do to make it upto you, just say. Because I’ve never been so wrong about a module before.

 

Thank you for posting this! I've been getting into Helo's myself and have been interested in the Gazelle from a 'fly by the seat of your pants' perspective.

 

I've read numerous posts on both sides of the fence, but a testimony from someone who changes sides is worth more than 10 testimonies from people who don't in my opinion (regardless of the side) - simply because it's a human trait to believe and stick with the first thing you believe and argue that point. Not that other testimonies aren't worth considering - they sure are - but changes in mind tend to hold a bit more weight because very few people seem capable and it takes a lot to admit when we're wrong and it normally takes more evidence to change someone's mind than to keep them believing their first impressions. (Hence the saying about first impressions).

 

There's a good chance the Gazelle will be on my list of 'to buys' when the next sale comes up (assuming there will be another sale).

 

Thank you for being humble enough to come on and admit you were wrong! :thumbup:

[MAXsenna]

Thank you for posting this! I've been getting into Helo's myself and have been interested in the Gazelle from a 'fly by the seat of your pants' perspective.

 

I've read numerous posts on both sides of the fence, but a testimony from someone who changes sides is worth more than 10 testimonies from people who don't in my opinion (regardless of the side) - simply because it's a human trait to believe and stick with the first thing you believe and argue that point. Not that other testimonies aren't worth considering - they sure are - but changes in mind tend to hold a bit more weight because very few people seem capable and it takes a lot to admit when we're wrong and it normally takes more evidence to change someone's mind than to keep them believing their first impressions. (Hence the saying about first impressions).

 

There's a good chance the Gazelle will be on my list of 'to buys' when the next sale comes up (assuming there will be another sale).

 

Thank you for being humble enough to come on and admit you were wrong!

Good words Adam. The Gazelle is fun!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

Did you know that IRL there was a time limit imposed of 3 seconds when pulling from 0 pitch to IPS through the flight manual and FRCs. Perhaps you might want to consider the possibility that is the reason why your collective responds slower if you simply yank the collective up. Its protecting you from breaking the gearbox by using improper flying techniques......

 

Perhaps if you would read my comment first would help you understand that I know all that, and I am pointing out that things are suppose to be modeled as in reality through all the modules.

You would know that if you would know what I am talking about. As I am not claiming that all the time, in all the modules, in every case the ratio must be 1:1 or even possible.

As that is just impossible because there is no connection between virtual control and real control.

[Fri13]

So one thread gets shut down and you guys all jump on another one.......wow....

 

If someone has personal problems, they should deal with them somewhere else. If they can't stay on the topic, don't enter to the topic.

 

People who put other people on the ignore list is a sign that they just ignore the truth. Close their eyes, pretend that nothing else exist than what they want there to be.

 

The poll thread got closed because people couldn't avoid personal insults and attacks and not discuss about the topic about what kind risks is there to buy a Kiowa Warrior based the Gazelle problems.

 

For what its worth to anyone who cares to actually listen......the sat levels are not there to fix the FM issues

 

So credit for what is to be given? What for anyone should give credit for?

In the risk evaluation thread discussion was about the similar FM problems appearing in the future module, not about input problems with short joystick or so.... Yet people come to claim that FM was not problem but the people having the problems because "you have Force Feedback enabled" or "You don't have correct required input curves and saturation" or "You do not know what a SAS does!". All for just personal attacks with avoidance the real problem.

 

And people should always be giving praises for the Gazelle flight characteristics with their input devices?

 

they are there to compensate for a short throw stick and dampen the twitchiness of the airframe.

 

So credit for what? That someone can fly without crashing helicopter that has unrealistic flight modeling by using artificially wrong input adjustments?

 

I for one only reduce my sat levels to 50% on pitch and roll on the Y axis alone.

 

I have full 100%, and I have zero problems for the "twichiness" or "requirements for compensation". Because problems are not there...

 

If someone do not like to hear about problems and want to pretend that everything is right and perfect and great and happy... They have rights not read anything about the topic and just go enjoying about what they have and pretend it is all OK.

 

This topic directly touches AGAIN the flight modeling and input system in Gazelle. Sorry. That is the OP own causing to start discussing again about and how it is time that Polychop gets apologized. That they are given credit to do the current Gazelle.

 

Like, what happens when the new fixed flight modeling and input system appears? Credit has been given for what? Is it again "Do not say anything negative about it, or I add you to my ignore list" or "Let me praise the product to heavens, and regardless of any possible problems in it, you shall not say so or I go fully personal and I will do all my power that I get the thread closed!".

 

If someone does not like to talk about input and flight modeling problems in Gazelle, don't start such threads or enter to those threads that falls in that topic.

How about someone would go and start threads about 3D modeling or texture quality or impressive sounds etc. No one could come and discuss there about those two problematic things as they would be Off-Topic!

 

What I should expect from resetting input values to those mentioned ones?

Would I start to praise the Gazelle and expect to give credit for them, for what exactly?

 

How many is seriously here saying that this thread is not about input problems to fly the Gazelle properly?

[BIGNEWY]

Guys lets not start fighting in this thread.

 

thanks

[ngreenaway]

Good words Adam. The Gazelle is fun!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

 

Thats why the Gaz was my first recommendation to adam , over the other helos. Theyre each unique and have their own strengths, but the gazelle is fun in ways the others aren't...especially when high-speed buzzing thru iranian villages at below rooftop level :)

 

My only criticism of it is is doesn't work "out of the box" and for a long time i found it hardly playable, but once you tune the settings just right, its a blast

Adam, if you enjoyed the ah-6, youre gonna love the gazelle. Get it next sale

[Haukka81]

Dont get gazelle if you like realistic flight model. Gazelle has arcade ”ufo” model for now. I hope that it gets fixed someday but im not holding my breath.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

At not one point did my hand leave its resting point on my leg for cyclic control..... not once.

80 knots or zero knots that cyclic stayed within the movements of my fingers alone, perhaps a slight rotation of movement around the base of my palm on its resting point on my leg.... I concentrated on finger tip control from the get go and I maintained it too.

 

The Robinson cyclic design allows to move cyclic differently than a conventional cyclic that is on the floor. You can literally move the Robinson cyclic around far more just with the fingertips because of its free floating mechanism.

 

And one problem is as well that many doesn't realize how much they eventually are moving the cyclic, as you must learn to avoid thinking about it.

 

Yet, you should never be limited about the full control input range there is, so you can have full authority for main rotor and anti-torque rotor when required. That is the problem in the saturation and curves that you are limiting that.

 

 

I hated the look of the R22 cyclic but it is instantaneously adjustable for height and very responsive... great design.

 

Clever way, and very good for various kind people flying the helicopter. But it does have downsides too.

 

The collective is slightly stiff but smooth to change, It resists your change but is smooth and somewhat easy. If you power up the collective fast, it really resists that fast change.... it is harder work but can be done. it changes resistance by the speed in which you change collective and it does this by simply limiting the flow of liquid through a certain sized hole.

 

This is reason why some of us like to build own collectives, so we can get these physical feedback dampenings and all to the controller itself, not based to software. So we need a way to have 1:1 ratio for input as our hardware already has the proper physical feedback system. Additional for that via software makes it just bad combination.

 

If you look at all other choppers in DCS they all have a resistance to change programmed into the collective, whip up your gaming collective instantaneously and watch the in game collective stick slowly increase.... lagging well behind your friction free gaming input.

 

Those who have frictionless controllers, they do benefit from the virtual dampening, but those who has physical dampening, would benefit from zero virtual dampening.

 

It is same thing like those who fly with a 40 cm extension has totally different experience than those who fly without any extensions.

Like long time ago when Gazelle came out, 40 cm extension joystick was such that it was required to be moved from top of the joystick (about 55-60 cm from the gimbal) just 2-3 millimeters. It was totally impossible to fly relaxed and without thinking the control as slightest movement did flip it instantly around in less than a second and you died. Then the modifications came and it became possible remove the curves and saturation (and shorten the extension too) but even today it is requiring less movement than real thing.

 

I haven not flown any DCS helicopter with table top joystick for years, and I am not willing to even try as it must be total frustration builder if even looking at the joystick would make it go crazy. So it is understandable that all kind dampening systems are added and included and used to just avoid player overcorrections, and why then as well players needs to modify their virtual inputs to get controllability.

 

The similar thing was with a KA-50 when players has major problems with its trimming system, because they use a centering joysticks, while real thing has a magnetic lock trimmer, and so on those of us who has a Force Feedback joystick or magnetic brake to use, it doesn't cause the problem as the joystick works like real one. You move the joystick for wanted input and trim, the joystick will stay in that position even by taking hand off.

 

I once started K-50 with the default "spring centering joystick" setting after re-install and it bricked my brains as couldn't get that what is wrong for a minute, as people know after each trim press button one needs to recenter the joystick to be able give a new input from new virtual off-axis position.

[MAXsenna]

Thats why the Gaz was my first recommendation to adam , over the other helos. Theyre each unique and have their own strengths, but the gazelle is fun in ways the others aren't...especially when high-speed buzzing thru iranian villages at below rooftop level :)

 

 

 

My only criticism of it is is doesn't work "out of the box" and for a long time i found it hardly playable, but once you tune the settings just right, its a blast

 

Adam, if you enjoyed the ah-6, youre gonna love the gazelle. Get it next sale

I totally agree!

Can't wait for the Kiowa, and the Hind. Don't care which comes first. They're both on top of my list!

Cheers!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Fri13]

At not one point did my hand leave its resting point on my leg for cyclic control..... not once.

80 knots or zero knots that cyclic stayed within the movements of my fingers alone, perhaps a slight rotation of movement around the base of my palm on its resting point on my leg.... I concentrated on finger tip control from the get go and I maintained it too.

 

The Robinson cyclic design allows to move cyclic differently than a conventional cyclic that is on the floor. You can literally move the Robinson cyclic around far more just with the fingertips because of its free floating mechanism.

 

And one problem is as well that many doesn't realize how much they eventually are moving the cyclic, as you must learn to avoid thinking about it.

 

Yet, you should never be limited about the full control input range there is, so you can have full authority for main rotor and anti-torque rotor when required. That is the problem in the saturation and curves that you are limiting that.

 

 

I hated the look of the R22 cyclic but it is instantaneously adjustable for height and very responsive... great design.

 

Clever way, and very good for various kind people flying the helicopter. But it does have downsides too.

 

The collective is slightly stiff but smooth to change, It resists your change but is smooth and somewhat easy. If you power up the collective fast, it really resists that fast change.... it is harder work but can be done. it changes resistance by the speed in which you change collective and it does this by simply limiting the flow of liquid through a certain sized hole.

 

This is reason why some of us like to build own collectives, so we can get these physical feedback dampenings and all to the controller itself, not based to software. So we need a way to have 1:1 ratio for input as our hardware already has the proper physical feedback system. Additional for that via software makes it just bad combination.

 

If you look at all other choppers in DCS they all have a resistance to change programmed into the collective, whip up your gaming collective instantaneously and watch the in game collective stick slowly increase.... lagging well behind your friction free gaming input.

 

Those who have frictionless controllers, they do benefit from the virtual dampening, but those who has physical dampening, would benefit from zero virtual dampening.

 

It is same thing like those who fly with a 40 cm extension has totally different experience than those who fly without any extensions.

Like long time ago when Gazelle came out, 40 cm extension joystick was such that it was required to be moved from top of the joystick (about 55-60 cm from the gimbal) just 2-3 millimeters. It was totally impossible to fly relaxed and without thinking the control as slightest movement did flip it instantly around in less than a second and you died. Then the modifications came and it became possible remove the curves and saturation (and shorten the extension too) but even today it is requiring less movement than real thing.

 

I haven not flown any DCS helicopter with table top joystick for years, and I am not willing to even try as it must be total frustration builder if even looking at the joystick would make it go crazy. So it is understandable that all kind dampening systems are added and included and used to just avoid player overcorrections, and why then as well players needs to modify their virtual inputs to get controllability.

 

The similar thing was with a KA-50 when players has major problems with its trimming system, because they use a centering joysticks, while real thing has a magnetic lock trimmer, and so on those of us who has a Force Feedback joystick or magnetic brake to use, it doesn't cause the problem as the joystick works like real one. You move the joystick for wanted input and trim, the joystick will stay in that position even by taking hand off.

 

I once started K-50 with the default "spring centering joystick" setting after re-install and it bricked my brains as couldn't get that what is wrong for a minute, as people know after each trim press button one needs to recenter the joystick to be able give a new input from new virtual off-axis position.

 

The input system will be always challenging on all simulators when physical controls can't match the real thing. That is after all one major reason people buy these special joysticks imitating real HOTAS, so they get proper button and hat layouts and all.

There is no reason either for some people feel bad if they don't own such ones, but need to come by with some more generic ones or "wrong ones" and be clever with the bindings and all.

[Fri13]

Dont get gazelle if you like realistic flight model. Gazelle has arcade ”ufo” model for now. I hope that it gets fixed someday but im not holding my breath.

 

Gazelle is not fit for training a helicopter flying. But it is fun to fly by what it has.

The Gazelle weapons systems are great. I have always been attracted to the light and agile attack helicopter for ATGM missiles where you can fly around trees to find the tiny spot to get ATGM hitting MBT.

 

That is reason why I was sad hearing that Bo-105 was frozen and all other things (and now really hoping that Razbam could help it get it developed) as it is another similar amazing helicopter to fly.

 

Gazelle does have as well excellent visibility, it feels that you are "face in windshield" and it somewhat has that, but as you can't remove the doors, it is little "ugly" on the door windows. Why I am waiting Kiowa Warrior as you get doors off and should offer very very nice "view to out" to zip through forests and towns.

 

I am as well holding my breath for the ED improvements to ground troops, as light attack helicopter with a MG or small caliber cannon and couple rockets is very intriguing. But when one can't have properly behaving typical ground threats, they are not so useful at the moment.

Kiowa Warrior totally requires more of that action than anything else, but Gazelle L variant is not much different from its purpose. Sad thing is that Gazelle can't have the laser guided rockets like Kiowa Warrior will.

[MAXsenna]

The Robinson cyclic design allows to move cyclic differently than a conventional cyclic that is on the floor. You can literally move the Robinson cyclic around far more just with the fingertips because of its free floating mechanism.

 

 

 

And one problem is as well that many doesn't realize how much they eventually are moving the cyclic, as you must learn to avoid thinking about it.

 

 

 

Yet, you should never be limited about the full control input range there is, so you can have full authority for main rotor and anti-torque rotor when required. That is the problem in the saturation and curves that you are limiting that.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Clever way, and very good for various kind people flying the helicopter. But it does have downsides too.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is reason why some of us like to build own collectives, so we can get these physical feedback dampenings and all to the controller itself, not based to software. So we need a way to have 1:1 ratio for input as our hardware already has the proper physical feedback system. Additional for that via software makes it just bad combination.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Those who have frictionless controllers, they do benefit from the virtual dampening, but those who has physical dampening, would benefit from zero virtual dampening.

 

 

 

It is same thing like those who fly with a 40 cm extension has totally different experience than those who fly without any extensions.

 

Like long time ago when Gazelle came out, 40 cm extension joystick was such that it was required to be moved from top of the joystick (about 55-60 cm from the gimbal) just 2-3 millimeters. It was totally impossible to fly relaxed and without thinking the control as slightest movement did flip it instantly around in less than a second and you died. Then the modifications came and it became possible remove the curves and saturation (and shorten the extension too) but even today it is requiring less movement than real thing.

 

 

 

I haven not flown any DCS helicopter with table top joystick for years, and I am not willing to even try as it must be total frustration builder if even looking at the joystick would make it go crazy. So it is understandable that all kind dampening systems are added and included and used to just avoid player overcorrections, and why then as well players needs to modify their virtual inputs to get controllability.

 

 

 

The similar thing was with a KA-50 when players has major problems with its trimming system, because they use a centering joysticks, while real thing has a magnetic lock trimmer, and so on those of us who has a Force Feedback joystick or magnetic brake to use, it doesn't cause the problem as the joystick works like real one. You move the joystick for wanted input and trim, the joystick will stay in that position even by taking hand off.

 

 

 

I once started K-50 with the default "spring centering joystick" setting after re-install and it bricked my brains as couldn't get that what is wrong for a minute, as people know after each trim press button one needs to recenter the joystick to be able give a new input from new virtual off-axis position.

I had no issues flying the Gazelle with my TM16K, as soon as I turned off FFB. No curve no saturation. I had the chance to get hold on an MS FFB2 for cheap. Now, I can't go back, I admit that. And I'm also thinking about tinkering to make my own cyclic/collective. That part I agree with.

You have a lot of knowledge Fri. Way more than me. But you type a lot of words into paragraphs that others do in a sentence. And this constant bashing on the Gazelle gets old now. It leads to nowhere.

And this deminshing of those of us that has fun. It's just bad man.

If you don't want to buy the Kiowa, don't. I get it.

Cheers!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[Gizmokev]

Then the modifications came and it became possible remove the curves and saturation (and shorten the extension too) but even today it is requiring less movement than real thing.

 

As someone who actually flew P1, Right Hand Seat in the real thing I find it frustrating that you with no real life experience of being in command of the actual Gazelle are attempting to validate your opinion on the reactiveness of the cyclic controls against the real airframe.

 

What point of reference are you referring too? Is it the video on the controls v graphs from the flight manual by the engineer. If so how do you know that the control view is exactly replicating the instruments used in the flight test? You dont!!!

 

Are you referencing other videos on Youtube and making assumptions based on where you assume the cyclic is based on the look of where the cyclic is during a particular manoeuvre against the Controls View? If thats the case then how do you know where dead centre is to reference all movements from?

 

I will inform you now, once and for all......we all know the FM isnt perfect, exact, is missing a few elements but the fine control of the airframe requiring micro movements on the cyclic is exactly as per the real airframe. How do I know because I have real stick time and experience of the actual airframe gained from when I won my Military Wings on the Gazelle.

 

Now if you wish to continue any discussion on this and want a true and accurate perspective from an actual IRL pilot with actual time on the Gazelle please ask away and I will let you know but please dont for one second ever think you can tell me I dont know what I am talking about.

[Fri13]

As someone who actually flew P1, Right Hand Seat in the real thing I find it frustrating that you with no real life experience of being in command of the actual Gazelle are attempting to validate your opinion on the reactiveness of the cyclic controls against the real airframe.

 

Please validate your facts:

 

1) In your opinion, how much does the cyclic move in her hands when the instructor moves from hover to forward flight?

 

1 mm

2 mm

2-4 mm

more than 1 cm?

 

 

Are those in your opinion "micro movements" as you call?

Looks normal to me, and sorry for sarcasm, but YEAH, IT IS A REAL THING!

Now repeat that in the DCS:Gazelle and what happens?

 

 

2) You have zero information about my experiences in the real helicopters, nothing zada. It doesn't matter what I have, what you have, what anyone has. As only thing that really matters is the evidence that you can provide like documents, material evidence, laws of physics, logic etc.

 

As you have zero information about me, stop continuing your personal attacks. If you can not discuss about the topic, then stay away. If you can't do anything else discus about the person and not the subject, you have a personal problem and you must deal it by yourself, alone. So now just apology me and get back to subject instead person.

 

What point of reference are you referring too? Is it the video on the controls v graphs from the flight manual by the engineer. If so how do you know that the control view is exactly replicating the instruments used in the flight test? You dont!!!

 

What are you referring to?

You can yourself go and replicate the same physical flight conditions as close as possible, just like Erik Scott did in his sample:

 

Do not make personal attacks against me if you do not agree with that video findings, instead make your case with the evidence that supports the current control inputs in Gazelle.

 

Are you referencing other videos on Youtube and making assumptions based on where you assume the cyclic is based on the look of where the cyclic is during a particular manoeuvre against the Controls View? If thats the case then how do you know where dead centre is to reference all movements from?

 

Where do I say that I know that where the physical control device like Cyclic center is?

Do you understand that what is a difference that when in a stable video a cyclic is moved relative the the person hand a 3-5 centimeters, that it is an evidence that it is suppose to move more than a 1-2 millimeters as in the Gazelle 3D cockpit or 3-5 millimeters with physical joystick with 40 cm extension and zero saturation or curves adjustment (and yes, all the FF things disabled etc etc that you might try to use as your argument).

 

I will inform you now, once and for all......we all know the FM isnt perfect, exact, is missing a few elements but the fine control of the airframe requiring micro movements on the cyclic is exactly as per the real airframe. How do I know because I have real stick time and experience of the actual airframe gained from when I won my Military Wings on the Gazelle.

 

You all know? Then why are you promoting that there is nothing wrong in it? That it is so great and amazing that credit needs to be given to the developers making that system, that it is so great that it needs to be radically changed and modified in the future. Then what when it is done? Are you going then change your voice in the trumpet that "it was bad earlier, but now it is correct!".

 

It is clear now that you feel personally insulted when someone say that Gazelle input system is broken, but because that, do not make personal attacks against others as it is not advancing your arguments at all. Instead start providing the evidence.

So stop personal attacks and insults, and get in the Gazelle and make videos, start to provide evidence that counters everything else! But do not go to the person as it is nothing more than a sign that you have no evidence to support your claims! This is not about you, this is about Gazelle.

If you can't stay in the subject, then don't argue.

 

Now if you wish to continue any discussion on this and want a true and accurate perspective from an actual IRL pilot with actual time on the Gazelle please ask away and I will let you know but please dont for one second ever think you can tell me I dont know what I am talking about.

 

I have been respectful toward you, but you have no respect to me because you have continued doing just personal attacks without any evidence to support the claims that Gazelle is correct as is and the real gazelle cyclic is not moved from the center when performing maneuvers.

 

I have not said that you don't know what you are talking about if you provide evidence, but you don't. You just make personal attacks trying to win the argument about hard evidence.

 

Do you disagree with this graphic:

 

 

That is based to Flight Test in August 1975 by U.S Army Air Mobility Research And Development Laboratory.

 

That is based to physical controls position in their full travel range. 50% means it is at the center of the axis, 0% means it is on one end and 100% it is on another end.

 

There is zero evidence by you or by anyone else provided to document that how the real gazelle control inputs are to be positioned in relative to the control input box in DCS.

Not a single evidence. Only personal attacks and accusations.

 

If you talk about my video where it is flown just to show the helicopter behavior with ZERO INPUT from cyclic, only using collective or pedals one at the time, then you can start to providing evidence that why it is correct and proper.

 

Leave your ego out of the discussion, it is not the topic. If you feel hurt because someone says there is a error and major one in the Gazelle flight modeling, it is your personal problem.

If you want to try to have a contest, you can do it alone if you can't provide evidences.

[Fri13]

I had no issues flying the Gazelle with my TM16K, as soon as I turned off FFB. No curve no saturation. I had the chance to get hold on an MS FFB2 for cheap. Now, I can't go back, I admit that. And I'm also thinking about tinkering to make my own cyclic/collective. That part I agree with.

 

Have you had a change to fly with a long extended joystick in proper position? And fly with any other helicopters? As you must get tired with a Mi-8, UH-1H and KA-50 to hold the TM16K constantly off-center where its spring is trying to push you (unless you enable the "cheat" that allows you to trim and return joystick to center etc)?

 

You have a lot of knowledge Fri. Way more than me. But you type a lot of words into paragraphs that others do in a sentence.

 

If I would do it in shorter manner, it wouldn't lead anywhere else than personal insults as it is as say "you are wrong" without any explanation. Everyone deserves to have a argument constructed for them. If someone has no respect to read what other says, then they are the rude person as they have no interested to even accept that there is possibility for them to be incorrect. It is like sticking fingers to ears and just yell "lalalalalal". Same thing is with personal attacks, when the person has no evidence, logic or anything to support their argument, they resolve to personal attacks to win the argument. No matter how they would accuse someone from something, the water doesn't turn to fire because they think so.

 

And this constant bashing on the Gazelle gets old now. It leads to nowhere.

 

It is not constant at all. Not at all. If I am away from here for three years, how can it be constant?

If the people come and say just without evidence, explanation and false accusations (even personal attacks) they get countered with reply with evidence and explanation.

If it is now just two threads like in three day period time, where I get only personal attacks because some people do not like the idea at all that Gazelle requires the fix https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4513472&postcount=19 and all.

 

 

And this deminshing of those of us that has fun. It's just bad man.

 

If someone has fun to fly Gazelle, I am included in those.

But I don't dare to come to say here that it is great, better than ever and NOT requiring serious fixing. I don't pretend or even dare to think that I should be giving credit for developers for developing the current flight model and input system. As that is exactly same thing as accepting that current one is perfect and not requiring changes.

 

If you don't want to buy the Kiowa, don't. I get it.

 

See, you just made it personal attack. You made an assumption that I don't want to buy it.

You made it about Kiowa Warrior purchase in this thread that is about Gazelle input system (check the first post if you don't understand).

 

You build an strawman that goes like; as I don't want to buy a Kiowa Warrior, then I must dislike it. And if I dislike it, I must dislike the Gazelle too, and if I dislike the Gazelle, I might dislike anything Polychop produces, and so on I should try to loath everything in the grounds because of that.

 

For your information, here is one of my personal opinions about it:

Why I am holding decision time do I take a risk on day one, or wait years to see nothing changed?

 

Why? Because the time to make the decision is not yet there. When the Kiowa Warrior gets released, that is the last moment the decision for "day one purchase" can be made. I can wait a week to see what others say, I can buy it on first day and find out myself. But if there is or is not problems, it can't be 100% accuracy say so before release. Only evaluated and compared with the evidence material there is out right this moment.

[Extranajero]

Only in the strange Twilight Zone of DCS could we have someone who has never flown a helicopter telling someone who really has flown a helicopter that he is completely wrong, and supporting that conclusion with a 10,000 word essay complete with videos and graphs.

 

It's truly beautiful in its own way :)

[ngreenaway]

Same twilight zone where "If you don't want to buy the Kiowa, don't. I get it." Is a personal attack.

 

I just wish people would enjoy things a bit more

 

[Gizmokev]

Please validate your facts

 

Aaaaaaand back on the ignore list you go........... "shakes head slowly with a wry smile on his face"........you can lead said horse to water but if the horse don't wanna drink its gonna die eventually of thirst......maybe then it will have understood you were trying to help.......

Edited October 9, 2020 by Gizmokev

[MAXsenna]

Only in the strange Twilight Zone of DCS could we have someone who has never flown a helicopter telling someone who really has flown a helicopter that he is completely wrong, and supporting that conclusion with a 10,000 word essay complete with videos and graphs.

 

It's truly beautiful in its own way :)

Ooooohh!! You actually wrote essays. I was gonna do that but I changed mine to paragraphs instead.

 

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

Same twilight zone where "If you don't want to buy the Kiowa, don't. I get it." Is a personal attack.

 

I just wish people would enjoy things a bit more

 

Yup, I have the pleasure to enjoy DCS several hours a day.

My glass is always full!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

[MAXsenna]

Have you had a change to fly with a long extended joystick in proper position? And fly with any other helicopters? As you must get tired with a Mi-8, UH-1H and KA-50 to hold the TM16K constantly off-center where its spring is trying to push you (unless you enable the "cheat" that allows you to trim and return joystick to center etc)?

 

Cheat? What are you on? It's simulator. Everything is cheating!!!

And, no I didn't bother to take out the springs, and I didn't extend it. I used the trim feature. That's why I got the MS FFB2. It's waaay easier.

Are you dissing on people with centering sticks for using the trim function now?

 

"It is like some of us needs to take a risk with Kiowa Warrior to find out what it really ends up to be in Gazelle."

 

Your words man.

 

EDIT: In another post you actually said that all of us, that enjoys the Gazelle for what it is, should immediately stop flying it until PC "fixed" it. I didn't take that as a personal attack but I sure as hell took it as an insult! Go figure!

 

Sent from my ANE-LX1 using Tapatalk

Edited October 9, 2020 by MAXsenna

[Fri13]

Cheat? What are you on? It's simulator. Everything is cheating!!!

 

If a real thing has a magnetic brake to lock your cyclic to trimmed position so it doesn't accidentally move away from it if you let go, then what you do you call a feature that makes your joystick work a such way that after each time you press a trim button, you must center the joystick to its spring loaded center before you can give an new input?

 

Isn't that a cheat to compensate for limitation in the gaming devices to overcome the problem that they don't have that real thing has?

 

And, no I didn't bother to take out the springs, and I didn't extend it. I used the trim feature. That's why I got the MS FFB2. It's waaay easier.

 

Yes, and if you get a change in the future to have it extended to proper length, you will enjoy from it far more even.

 

Are you dissing on people with centering sticks for using the trim function now?

 

What's up with the loaded questions?

Are you claiming that I don't normally use a trim?

 

"It is like some of us needs to take a risk with Kiowa Warrior to find out what it really ends up to be in Gazelle."

 

Your words man.

 

Since when you think that "taking a risk" is same thing as "not want to buy it"?

Care to open up your argument logic?

Are you saying that Kiowa Warrior can't have by any change a problematic flight modeling or input system?

 

Do you think that seeing the improvements in the Kiowa Warrior can't point out anything as evidence that what kind improvements we would see in the Gazelle's future?

 

EDIT: In another post you actually said that all of us, that enjoys the Gazelle for what it is, should immediately stop flying it until PC "fixed" it. I didn't take that as a personal attack but I sure as hell took it as an insult! Go figure!

 

Please if you are going to quote me, then quote me correctly and in the context. Now, run back and link to the post.

[Fri13]

Aaaaaaand back on the ignore list you go...........

So your only evidence was.... Ad Hominem.

 

Pretty much off-topic post you have there, as you have nothing to add the discussion about why people should give credit to developers for Gazelle current flight modeling, that is to be changed in the future from the current one.....