Focha

Thank you.

I'm with you on that... They always forget FFB people.

Can you guys please enable FFB in the next update? It is a simple thing but it is never present in early releases. Thank you.

How can I join the fun?

I think I crashed the server today... I was unpacking a SAM as as soon as the unpacking begun, the server crashed. Don't know where to report, so I reported here. I was flying a Huey, in blue side, near Sukhumi. Let me know if you need more information.

Me.

What version of DCS is Blue Flag running? Is it beta? Can't find it in the list of servers and I have DCS up to date.

Didn’t know about that. Too bad, it would add to the experience.

Is it possible to add dynamic weather?

Hi there, I was wondering if there is some information out there about how to plan for a mission. Explaining the IPs, etc... and how do you set them. Any material that you guys know of? Thank you in advance. Kind regards.

I went there and it is not so much about the Gazelle but about the flight dynamics/principles of flight general. Not even close to the content that it was discussed here.

Any news about Ground Radar?

I was 0. :) I am now 32! Best movie ever. And it was the main reason why I've become a pilot in RL.

It would be good to have a list of what is still to be implemented.

Hi all, Is it possible to know what is already concluded and what is yet to come? For example, is the FLIR and TGP image final? Is it suppose to look like that? What is still left to do in the Harrier? A comprehensive list would be good to have. Thank you. Kind regards.

Please ask maintenance to polish it! :) In real life when you have a really scratchy canopy, in dusk and at dawn, it's really bad! Sometimes I have to get my lateral references to know where I'm going.

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.

Sure helicopters are comparable. Why wouldn't you compare? Wouldn't you compare a Cessna 172 with a Piper something? They have handling qualities that have to be the same, and obviously they fly differently. But they can be compared. Often in RL you compare aircraft you fly. You even compare different models of the same helicopter... because they handle differently, but again, the essence is the same. So, to question your certainties, yes, you can compare.

Ok... After I read all the posts replies since my last reply... I regret to say that I give up. It is incredible how a simply complex topic as this one turn out to all the directions except those that matters. I, myself, as a helicopter pilot in real life know that every helicopter flies differently. Yet, every helicopter has the same principles of flight. If Gazelle was a complex modern enough helicopter to use FBW system, I would stand down and don't comment some of the tests I've made and that reported earlier in this topic. But Gazelle is not a modern helicopter. I believe to some extend the SAS system helps the workload of the pilot. As with the AS365 N1 I fly, that has AFCS with SAS, it make is more stable, but does not take out aerodynamic and forces effects that are common to all helicopter (at least conventional ones, meaning, one main rotor and one tail rotor/fenestron). So I give up. The reply from the Devs is that they have a team of real helicopter pilots that give feedback and said the FM is ok. The next argument is that the Gazelle is a different helicopter. And the last argument is that it is an attack to this module. Yet, I didn't find any reply commenting the fundamental works of its hydraulic or servo electric mechanics linked with how the SAS works and how it feels more like an FBW system than an mechanical/magnetic link to the controls. How do the developers justify that the cyclic position is returned to neutral (joystick neutral) and yet the helicopter maintains the attitude, with or without SAS engaged? I am still waiting to see a reply from the developers explaining the critical tests I've made with Gazelle module and the comments I've posted earlier. So, I give up. I am tired of trying to show that unless the Gazelle is a very complex machine, there are a number of things that for me, as a RL helicopter pilots, does not make sense. I came here and asked, why is it that the Gazelle behaves like this, since it is completely different from what I would expect from a helicopter simulation. The analogy is, that the Gazelle right now, seems more like Apache from Longbow 2, then from what I would expect from a 2018 simulation, since others have broken barriers in this kind of home simulation. So, I apologize for starting up this topic again, it seems that people here don't like to be confronted with one with some knowledge as to offer. Plus, and this is just personal opinion... Developer seemed like a kid replying why someone is in the beta team, in a public open discussion that as nothing to do with that. Please, stick to the topic. But better, close it. From what I understand it just doesn't worth it. I hope you consider my opinion regarding FFB joystick and the behavior that we are getting and again I stand my ground in saying that the Gazelle is a very special helicopter (if it is indeed how it is flying in DCS) because I've never experienced a helicopter like it... and I already flown a few in RL. Kind regards and again sorry for expressing my view on your product. But I am also tired and feel that the review I have made it didn't serve for any purpose, and I lost a few minutes of my life doing that free review of your FM.

Very nice. Thank you for sharing.

You know... that is not true. Come on... you know it. :megalol:

See the post Flight Model V2. It's not that the FM is bad, I think it is a matter of how they choose to implement the controls. Meaning the interface between user/hardware/sim. Probably this decision was based in centered spring joysticks, but it is not a good representation. It feels more like flying in Jane's Longbow 2 than in a 2018's sim. Personally I really don't like it, because for me does not represent what flying a real helicopter is as much as other modules. Huey also has some details in FM that are a bit odd, like the elastic wobbling roll during cruise with minimal joystick displacement near deadzone, but it feels much more realistic than Gazelle in the FM/user interface/trim. I like both regarding 3D modeling and sound, Gazelle has better texture work, I believe. And can't beat the fact that has more weapons, specially wired missiles. It is hard, but if you are choosing based on what flying an helicopter should feel, go for Huey, if you want more systems/weapons, then go for Gazelle. I hope that in the future they can gives us a more representative interface, specially for FFB joystick users... Right now feels like Apache from Janes LB2. Mi-8 and Ka-50 are great helicopters also. Cheers.

To illustrate further more what I am describe above, a set of pictures taken from the video link above: Cyclic position during hover: Cyclic position somewhere during ETL (it was only momentarily but to illustrate the cyclic displacement): Cyclic during cruise: Camera is fixed. So, in Gazelle, its like you use the first image cyclic position every time... no trim needed. You just use the other position to change the helicopters attitude. Then go back to center again. That is not how helicopter behave. Hope that this way can show one of the things that for me, it makes your module not that great. Kind regards.

Flight Model Again V2 Hi Jester986, sorry if it felt that way, so I apologize if I was getting sarcastic. Not my intention. No, I do not have higher expectations than a FSTD... and quite frankly I started to feel like you, tired of saying all the things I don't feel right vs my RL experience vs other simulations. I understand it is a simulation. I am just trying to give my feedback to developers of what I consider that should be different. It is up to the developers to determine if they can push it or not. Also, I understand that each hardware is different (for example, I don't have spring tensions and if I disable FFB I don't have force in the joystick, it just wobbles freely) and that can produce different feelings to the user. What I cannot understand is that I see effects and dynamics on other modules so I my expectations are that the Gazelle will also display those general dynamics of helicopters... which in some cases it does not. But again, that might have something to do with the fact that hardware is different. I want to express my apologizes to Jester986 and thank him for his opinion. Without more, I just want to give you a report of what I have found. After further analysing your Flight Model (FM) I’ve conclude that the main problem is something related to Force Feedback (FFB) and how it is modelled and also some FM issues. I don’t know how you coded FFB on the Gazelle module, but for some reason it interferes with the FM. I have run a few tests with and without FFB enabled, and in the last case I have used “FFBsim” program to have a force enabled. I could not extensively test your module, I don’t have any knowledge in the weapons or target acquisition systems. I’ve just tested some very basic flight dynamics that all conventional helicopters should demonstrate. Definitions: -AFCS to refer to Gazelle module autopilot + servos; -Joystick refers to Microsoft Sidewinder Force Feedback 2 Joystick; -Without FFB refers to the setting off in DCS but with FFBsim running. -D, rotor diameter. In all cases there was ISA (MSL: 15+ºC 1013 hPa) and no wind. Cases: -A: With FFB and without AFCS. -B: With FFB and with AFCS. -C: Without FFB and with FFBsim and without AFCS. -D: Without FFB and with FFBsim and with AFCS For Case 1x, flight conditions were level flight, altitude 2000 feet and speed around 150 kmph. Case 1A: Started a gentle nose dive with the joystick to 10° nose down pitch. After I returned the joystick to centre and helicopter maintained 10° with cyclic centred. Then I quickly tap the joystick back and returned it immediately to centre, to produce a quick input. The helicopter attitude started to pitch up and then stopped at 0° pitch. I run a few more tests with those conditions as well as pitch up. The attitude always stopped at 0° pitch. As soon as pitch angle was 0 the pitch rate went 0 too. Case 1B: Same as Case 1A. Case 1C: The same behaviour was present, except that the helicopter felt more dynamic and less stiff/rigid. For example, the attitude did not stop at 0° pitch. It moved up a bit or down, estimating a 0°+/-0.5°. Case 1D: The same as Case 1C. For case 2x, flight conditions were initially hover then transition to forward flight. Case 2A: Joystick was push gently forward to obtain 10° pitch attitude, then joystick to centre. Helicopter maintained 10° pitch all the flight. No change at all present. There was no change of dynamics at or near ETL airspeed. At least not noticeable in the Gazelle attitude. Helicopter just continued with the same attitude and only changing altitude. In this case some anti-torque pedal input was necessary only to maintain direction. Case 2B: The same as case 2A. Case 2C: The same as case 2A and 2B. Case 2D: The helicopter attitude was more dynamic. There were differences in the pitch angle. Pitch was not static at 10° and decrease between a value of 7-5°. Generally, it felt more dynamic in this case but again without showing any signs of difference when ETL airspeed was achieved. For case 3x, flight conditions were initially hover 1/2 D then 10° roll right attitude. Gently move joystick to achieve 10° roll right then centre the joystick. The only commands were collective and anti-torque pedals to maintained height and direction. Case 3A: The helicopter maintained always 10° statically. No differences were noticeable with the different sideways airspeed or dynamics through blades. Case 3B: Same as 3A. Case 3C: Same as 3A but a bit more fluid and less stiff. Case 3D: The helicopter initially maintained the 10° and then returned to a near 0° roll attitude. In this case 3, case 3D is what I would except from a helicopter. Even if it has Stability Augmentation Systems (SAS), when you move helicopter sideways, you must always have a bit of cyclic to the place you want to go. In this case, it is expectable to maintain you cyclic a bit to the right, to keep the 10° roll attitude, because the helicopter will want to counter it and roll to the left. So, I was happy to see that finally case 3D gave me some resemblance of what I would expect to have but unfortunately, I could not see that in case 3A, 3B and 3C. Case 4x, flight conditions were, hover at 5000 feet and then gently joystick forward until 90° pitch down attitude. Case 4A: Full joystick forward and attitude will stop at 45° pitch down. Case 4B: Same as case 4A. Case 4C: Here the behaviour was different, it didn’t have that stop wall at 45° pitch and you could move to further than 45° and achieve ~80° or more with the eventuality of reaching the VNE and started to roll left. Case 4D: Same as case 4A. Conclusions: Case 1: The helicopter seems to have a tendency to be fuselage pitch driven, which can probably be related to the Gazelle’s rigid system although I would expect to have attitude differences with the increasing speed. Also, the stoppage at 0° pitch attitude does not seems right… the helicopters don’t magically stop at 0° pith attitude, although they have the tendency. But again, I was expecting to have cyclic input to maintain a constant pitch attitude through the different airspeeds achieved. Case 1D was much dynamic, which felt more right. Case 2: I was expecting different cyclic positions due to different dynamics of forward flight. I didn’t get any of that. You should have to get the cyclic forward to compensate the different effect on the disc (for example blowback, etc). It is like that you never have to use trim in the Gazelle, because you always make inputs to maintain attitude rather than maintain attitude with input. Flying the Gazelle right now, input cyclic achieve attitude, then neutral… and the helicopter just stays there. Anyway, just was expecting a little more dynamic behaviour, witch in the case 2D it is a bit more dynamic. In real helicopter, in a take-off, you must really adjust the cyclic position. And I am not talking about the tiny amounts you experience at hover. In the AS350 B3, the transition when you get effective translational lift (ETL) is a bit rough, the helicopter just bounces a bit during that transition until it settles in “new” air, especially at hot and loaded conditions and you have to really push the cyclic forward and to the left, if I remember correctly. In the AS365 N1, sometimes I force trimmed during ETL, since it was easier to fly it through. Case 3: Case 3, I was expecting that when I put the joystick to neutral, the helicopter tended to stop roll and to be statically stable and after a few oscillations, dynamically unstable. In real life, you always must maintain a bit of cyclic in the direction you want to translate. I could see this behaviour only in case 3D. Case 4: Probably the 45° push down limit has something to do with AFCS, although it also showed the same limit with AFCS OFF. With case 4D though, I could pitch down to more than 40~45° pitch. One thing that I found interesting is that the effects of exceedance of VNE should be a pitch up and roll to retreating side of the disc, in the Gazelle I don’t get, and I only get a roll to the retreating side, which the rate aggravates even if you put in practice a recovery. General conclusion: My general conclusion is that there is something weird in the way FFB is simulated. It is like you never need to trim the helicopter. I did not observe ETL effects on the disc (blowback) or expected effects near VNE. It seems that the cyclic is flying the attitude helicopter instead of the rotor disk attitude, but this is a rigid rotor type helicopter and I cannot comment on that. Even so, there are effects that should be present. I found that FFB off and AFCS on reflected more what I am used to have in a RL helicopter and other helicopter simulations. I don’t understand why sometimes feels that the helicopter reaches some limits. For example, when hits the pitch 0° degree "wall". It should continue to rise the nose up, if you just centre the cyclic or let it go. Or when you input a pitch attitude and the helicopter remains with that pitch attitude even if you centred the cyclic/joystick. Those behaviour I don’t understand and if tomorrow I was going to be type rated in a different helicopter from what I have flown, I would not expect that behaviour from it. I really hope I could bring you my review of your state of the art FM and with that, hope you can change somethings or not. It is up to the developer and if you guys think it is ok as it is, I am no one to push you forward. I really hope that developers take a look at how FFB is implemented in the Gazelle module, because right now it just doesn’t feel correct. Please take a look at how DCS Ka-50 or Huey cyclic trim is implemented for FFB, it should me something similar. The cyclic behaviour, for my personal experience is not good as it is. Just feels like you choose an attitude and then you just put the cyclic neutral/joystick centred. Helicopter are not flown like this. The only thing I can give you free of charge, is my experience with my hardware. Thank you. Check video for ETL cyclic inputs and turbulence.

I have this issue too... Sometimes I enter lobby but everything is frozen (cannot do anything), then DCS goes back to main menu. Other times it just went black. It is a bit frustrating. Regards.