0xDEADBEEF

I'd like to report this too. Tors are only engaging aircrafts.

The _ENTER_UNIT and _LEAVE_UNIT events are not working/not dispatched for clients. I solved it this way: the _BIRTH event is called once a player enters a unit. You can make sure it is a player by calling aircraftUnit:getPlayerName(), if it returns nil it is AI. As long as you get true on aircraftUnit:isExist() the player is actively in the aircraft. You may also wanna watch for _DIED _CRASHED and _EJECTED events as a substitute for the broken _LEAVE_UNIT event, as it is essentially the same end result.

I am glad you guys are taking feedback on the Flightmodel so serious. :noexpression: Like really, I have no words. I'm completely speachless about this reaction. Edit: Wait, I'll try the humorous approach as well. The Gazelle does not fly like a helicopter, so lets please not compare it to how other helicopters fly, ok?

We are turning in circles, over and over again. I am not saying and never have said "collective does not have inpact on the behavior of the Gazelle", I am saying collective has no influence on the pitch attitude, and pedals have no influence on the roll attitude, people even posted video showing that. I am not going to comment on real gazelle pilots saying it's close to the real deal, as it has been discussed sufficiently in this thread and in others (just look at post #23 in this thread if you're interested in my opinion).

Don't be too quick with you judgement, BST also did not deliver right from the start, Polychop very well deserves a chance to improve, don't forget its early access and their very first release! :smilewink:

Noone who seriously criticized the flightmodel (apart from the braggers) ever said its way overstated or too sensitive, we spent a fair effort bringing up fair points. It just does not behave like a real helicopter. The 3 controls being "syncopated" comes from them being completely disconnected from each other. You can press pedal any direction any deflection without needing to compensate on cyclic, the very same goes for collective, it just is not connected to cyclic - at all. This may be fun for you to fly (nothing wrong with that), but it just does not make it more realistic ;) You may say now: it's a game and it will never reach the real deal. I agree on the latter, but we can get closer and closer, even though we will never achieve 100% realism. Computers are getting faster and more capable, and devlopers get more experience. Unfortunately like I stated in multiple threads, the current FM of the Gazelle is nowhere near as realistic as the competition. I also disagree in this being "just a game", it is a simulator and has the claim to be as near to the real as possible, and I stand the strong opinion that it is possible to get a lot closer to the real thing than it is right now. If there was noone bringing up points about what is wrong with the FM, it would not improve. I personally find it sad when real-life Gazelle Pilots say: "it's just a game, and for a game it is sufficiently modeled", because that is not going to make the module any better. I think the superb systems modeling and work on the 3D-Models deserves a much more realistic FM. But hey, let's give polychop some time and lets see what they come up with. :thumbup: It is called "Pilot Induced Oscillation", and is something every beginner does (not exclusive to simulators at all and happens on fixedwing as well as rotary aircraft). The mean thing in simulators is, you don't have your "butt-meter" helping you with sensing motion, so it is even easier to get into PIO.

I have a similar problem on 1.2.8.1 All Radios are Unknown, regardless airframe. Checked the export.lua, reinstalled, rebooted, checked .net. I feel kinda stuck. :( EDIT: I just rechecked, after uninstall all SRS Files were still in the Scripts folder. I manually removed the lines from export.lua and deleted the other lua files related to srs, did another reinstall and now it works!! Nevertheless Ciribob, I always welcomed the idea of SRS, but now that I've used it a while, I rarely use Teamspeak anymore! Fantastic job, hope we get to sort the problems soon :) Fantastic Job!! thanks! beef

Significantly would be exaggerated, but there were changes quite a while ago. Still, the FM is not finished, as you can read up in various FM-focused threads (Early Access, Beta and stuff, you know, apart from helicopters not being particularly easy to simulate). It may be safe to expect more FM-changes you will have to get used to until it is finished ;)

BUG TEMPLATE: Description: I just coincidentally observed a gazelle spawn inbetween 3 vulcans. They opened fire, the client disconnected after 294 logged hits, likely more (engagement took about 20 seconds full power from 3 vulcans), the Gazelle never exploded, the server went unresponsive until it was finished processing the massive amount of hits. Example: Open ME, place blue Gazelle anywhere, place 5 vulcans around it, press fly and observe. DCS Version: 1.5.4.57288 and earlier Steam: no Map: caucasus SP/MP: mp Reproducible: yes Step to Reproduce: see example Screenshot/Video available: yes Track Available: yes but impractical and easy to reproduce Mission File: not attached Controllers: not relevant OS: not relevant RAM: not relevant GPU: not relevant Any Additional Information: This can cause big problems on mp-servers that intercept shot-/hit- events, because if coincidentally a situation like this happens, the server can get loaded up with a lot of processing-tasks to perform which is likely to have severe impact on server stability. It will also cause loads of lag. Also, if you fire and fire and fire at an enemy, and he only gets down but still stays in the cockpit, it negatively affects the MP experience (see Mirage damage discussion, although not as severe here, as it wont stay airborne like the mirage). I understand why this did not seem important till now, and I do think there are more important tasks. But I'm sure the MP community would appreciate if this could be moved up a little on priority, I don't think this will influence singleplayer much. Thank you! :pilotfly:

Yes this bug was fixed just recently, it is save to turn them off, they will only be displayed on the server to keep the scripts working, but not on clients :thumbup:

Yes. Proxy fuses are bugged since they first published the netcode-extrapolation-changes. Basically haven't seen any proximity-fuse go off ever since then, if the missile passes you by 20cm, it passes you. Guess they will come back when the new netcode is finished ...

I've been working on a bigger quite complex MP-Type mission for the past 6 Months, and I have spent countless tries evaluating what makes a FARP rearm/refuel/repair, and what not. It has apparently to do with what kind of units are near, but I am completely failing to find a pattern of which unit needs to be where that allows what or is required for whatever you wanna do. I FAILED TO FIND A PATTERN FOR THE PAST 6 MONTHS It sometimes works, then you restart the server and it doesnt work anymore, then I restart the server locally with the exactly same settings, and it suddenly works. I would really love to provide you guys with a bug report, with a way of reproduction or whatsoever. I can only tell you: There is no way to reproduce it. If you wanted me to guess I'd say the game just randomly tries to trick us into wrong thinking. I can only beg you ED to have a look into this. I know you are working on 2.5 and this is perfectly fine. Even if you cant fix it, PLEASE at least provide us with an official ideally logical answer on how this is supposed to work or at least how we can trick it to work. Because the behavior of the game does not seem to follow any logic. It sometimes likes me, sometimes not. If you are coding you know how crazy this can drive someone. Sincerely, Deadbeef

ah gotcha! I thought you were refering to my question, but it was to kobeshow about him not know where to find it. Mucho confusion. All questions answered, thnx!

I cannot see an image of the ME in the video, only the options in special tab... I am also not a huge fan of watching multi-minute videos to (not) find an information that would fit into one line of text, because it requires me to sit patiently and watch the video, until the information I'm looking for appears. I am really bad at things like these, please dont take it as an offense ;) Thank you very much Zeus! That's what i was looking for. So in short: Client checks: "does not require alignment" in special menu, and I do nothing in mission editor/make sure that checkbox is off.

Hi Guys! I seem to have a couple of issues turning alignment process off for everyone on a server, whatever I try, there's always some people who say it works well, and some claim they have to align what ever I set. I also seem to fail at finding a clear complete guide on how the whole INS thing works. I understand the manual is yet to be made and I understand why it takes some time. The search only resulted in long threads where I could not find the info I was looking for :( So most pressing issue for me: - What kind of scope does the options in the special menu have. Is it only for the client himself and/or does it have an effect on the mission if it is set on the Mission builders computer? - What exactly does the "force alignment" option in Mission Editor do. Does it force the client to align it for 8 minutes, or does it force the client to be aligned on spawn? From the text it could be both ... Thanks! Beef

srsly, all I'm doing is defending my points. I always said its fine that things take time, I do not think I am bashing the devs, and I am certainly not intending to shed bad light on anyone. I only have rather high expectations to a helicopter-sim released in 2016. That said: an official anouncement by the devs acknoledging a list of things we continue to bring up again and again may shut this whole discussion once and forever. I think we've discussed this long enough, with no valid counterpoints being brought up so far at all.

I am getting tired of your kind of posts. You once again claim we compare the Gazelle to Huey or other DCS helicopters, which is not true. I am referring to fundamental flight-characteristics that *every* helicopter shares, in DCS, in X-Plane, and in IRL (never tried FSX). Why don't you tells us more details about "from what you can tell"? I would be very interested to learn why the gazelle is only reacting to pitch and roll on cyclic input, no blowback, no pitch change in collective drop and raise. Noone ever said it should pitch with rudder input, but should induce a roll component with the input, while pitch-change could very well be the consequence of a roll momentum (if you roll right without countering the nose would eventually drop, the induced slip component would have consequences too). Maybe you should read more carefully before you post such things? I read the section on VRS and tail, and I fail to follow the books author. It reads as if he was referring to the main rotors Vortex Ring ( = downwash, no State, this is permanent) as VRS, which is basically confusing two things. There are indeed states of flight in helicopters where the downwash can effect tailrotor effectiveness/efficiency (however you wanna name it), but none of these have to do with the Vortex Ring State, which basically describes the helicopter being caught in his own vortex, which cannot be countered with power alone, but the pilots needs to fly out of the vortex if altitude is suffiecent. (off topic, you can use the tailrotor thrust to get out of VRS, once in it, apply max-power, left pedal and right cyclic on left turning rotors, right pedal and left cyclic on right turning systems, no matter of fenestron or not) Did you not notice at all that in the section the book refers to vrs, it is actually talking about flying sideways to the left in a left-turning rotor-system? This describes a completely different phenomenon than what you are talking about. Once again, if you have viable points countering the things I have brought up, I am very very happy to learn I am wrong. However, please bring up valid points against things that have actually been brought up, before you claim you're getting tired. That book seems interesting nevertheless, thank you!

Interesting, I am not getting the event at all from clients. I also noticed that if for instance a Mig-29 is hit by an Aim-7 (all clients), and the mig pilot stays in control of the aircraft, isExist() would return false. I think it should only return that if the unit is either exploded or crashed ... or both. Would make more sense scripting wise.

I am very much aware of the whole story, it still does not make the FM more realistic. Sorry. I have also provided the devs with as much feedback as I can, I did so from day one. At first I did not feel taken seriously at all. Felt like: "You are not a real Gazelle Pilot, we wont listen to you". At least now they said "we will look at it".

I never read about that. But it was/is being advertised as "as realistic as possible", and I disagree. There was even a video where Roie said: "we are happy with the FM and apart from a few tweaks we consider it finished", that was before I went deeper into my investigations and tried to explain myself in better detail.

It is indeed *very* present on the Huey, which is mainly due to the bell-hiller mixer on the rotorhead (if you look at it, the control-links dont go directly onto the blade-, but first on the paddle, then down again to the blade, which makes it very easy to control). It is much less present on the Mi8, but it's there, and even if you try the Ka50, it noses down if you lower collective just as well as it lifts the nose with increasing speed. Polychop is looking at it, but at the moment they are focussing at multicrew and the mistral, which is good as well. Also those testpilots are not available all the time. They did promise to look at the things I have reported, and I am fine with being patient. After all, I don't want that chopper fast, I want it to be good, and this is the only reason I am speaking up. Please let me also emphasize that I do not blame anyone, I am just trying to provide constructive feedback. If I ever become emotional in my response please accept my apologies, I've just pointed this out many times, and I have heard "I can fly it fine, you only need to practice" too many times. After all, I think Polychop does a great job, and I am sincerely looking forward to the day when both Gazelle and 105 are finished, apart from the FM they did an absolutely incredible job so far, and even the competition needs a couple of tries till the FM is right, so this is NO blame at all towards Polychop.

You are misinterpreting something. I never ever ever claimed it is hard to fly. I always claimed: "it does not fly like a helicopter". It simply does not do things a helicopter does, like nosing up with increasing airspeed, nosing up when lifting collective/down when dropping collective, adding a roll component when you press pedal in any direction. It does not do those things at all, despite them being fundamentals of helicopter-flying. In fact, I find pitch and roll is exclusively controlled by cyclic-input. I am still waiting for a helicopter-expert to confirm this is how the gazelle behaves IRL and why, because I am really willing to learn something new, but ever since the gazelle is out and explained my view on this, nobody has stepped forward and brought up an explanation (it is not due to its size, the fenestron or the SAS, yes the SAS would make these effects lesser, but not even the super sophisticated systems in the EC-135 reduces those effects to zero). IMHO the gazelle is defying physics. It is great that you are able to takeoff, land and fly a circuit, but please understand that this does not mean the flightmodel is accurate. Please let me emphasize this again: I NEVER EVER complained about it being hard to or me being unable to fly, it is no problem to adapt to the quirks and fly it, but this does not make it more realistic. I just happen to have spent a lot of time investigating how helicopters are controlled. I learned it in sims, and I got to confirm my findings in real helicopters on the controls, and I can tell you, it is fascinating to sit in the real thing the very first time, take off without help of the PIC and fly away, and you see your hands moving by themselves due to the things you learned in simulators. Taking off the gazelle every time is the complete opposite experience. I just recently got to fly co-seat on a R44 on a photo mission, on the way back the pilot let me take the controls, had to decend 5000ft into a tight valley, I reduced collective to start sinking, put cyclic aft to prevent a complete nose-down attitude (you dont want that in a robinson/low-g pushovers prohibited) while making sure the rotor would not overspeed, performed two circles to bleed altitude and line up for final, as speed decreased I gradually added more collective and eased out the sinking, Once at about 25kias I had to apply forward collective in order not to stop, as the landing spot the pilot wanted me to land at was still 50m ahead. It was not much, a couple of millimeters, barely feelable. Now I expect people to step up and say: "dude, you are comparing a Robinson to a Gazelle!". Yeah you're right, but guess what, the first helicopter I flew IRL was the Bo105, and I think there's few helicopters with a more similar rotorhead to the gazelle. Admitted, it's not fitted with SAS, but: IT WAS THE SAME PROCEDURE! Sure, the Bo is way more direct on input, any input on the stick gets DIRECTLY translated into attitude, very fascinating. But still: Doing an approach works the same, collective down, cyclic aft (the more aft cyclic the faster yo bleed speed), before you come to a hover a tiny little bit cyclic fwd. Now please go and try in the gazelle: Approach at full speed, apply a little bit AFT cyclic to slow down, and hold it there, now to prevent the nose from rising slowly drop collective (this is how you do it in real helicopters, all of them). You will be surprised you will find collective NOT having ANY effect on your nose moving up, even though your cyclic is just a tiny little bit aft. Oh and btw, in the Bo105 if you rise collective, the helicopter will also roll a little to the right, as a result you cannot get out of a high-bank right turn without bleeding massive amounts of altitude, while a 90°-bank left hand turn is no problem (see crash of Siegfried Hermann, on youtube incorrectly labeled as Charly Zimmermann)

Just found a bug in the PLAYER_LEAVE_UNIT event. It seems during this event.iniator:getPlayerName() would return an empty string "" instead of the players name, on a BIRTH event it is correct, if I go specators and trigger the LEAVE_UNIT event it returns "". Edit: tested it for clients, clients don't event trigger the event.

Finally I can also share some praise on the fm, what you are describing is what the Gazelles FM does best, much better than i.e. the huey. Apart from the SAS doing magic, it is the vertical stabilizer on the tail generating enough force to counter the torque from the main rotor, easing the power required of the fenestron. I really like how the Gazelles FM simulates this effect. I can confirm it is basically the same in the Bo105 which I got to fly IRL once, pedals not exactly centered at cruise speed, but more centered than not, and I consider it very much plausible that the SAS does the rest to keep it exactly centered in forward flight.

Do me a favour and ask him if the EC-135 will pitch up if you pull collective in forward flight while keeping cyclic in place. Ask him when he presses full pedal either direction at about 30 knots if the EC-135 helicopter will roll or if he can keep cyclic in place (apart from the obvious yaw). Ask him if applies slight aft cyclic at about 80kias and keeps it in that position, if he is able to stop the helicopter from nosing up by lowering collective until the helicopter stops, or if it will keep nosing up until you put cyclic fwd again. Ask him to repeat the same process in the Gazelle and let us know what he thinks.