Sephyrius
-
Posts
292 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Sephyrius
-
-
Sure thing, but it's not exactly cluttered when it's a forum section about an unreleased module, with zero news for an entire year, on a forum abandoned by the developers and with the last topic being 3 months old.
-
1
-
-
On 12/4/2021 at 11:46 PM, Maduce said:
I have read reports and watched some videos (what I am saying is I am not an expert) saying that the Gazelle's flight dynamics aren't that far off from the real deal. I enjoy flying it now once I practiced a lot. It is a very light chopper and wonder what a MD500 would fly like compared to the Gazelle. Anyway, just my two cents, not necessarily disagreeing with anyone.
Just to add two cents of my own, the Gazelle is fun to fly, mostly works well, and there's a whole slew of flight behaviors that I would gladly ignore because they only kick in for particular circumstances, the SCAS system working its magic, or are just ridiculous aerobatic maneuvers...
But I simply can't stand...how the cyclic input and subsequent behavior is so far off from normal flight behavior, as well as that surely being knowingly developed, as well as passing ED's QA, as well as seemingly being tailored towards somehow making things easier for self-centering sticks, and apparently is so integrated into the flight model that god knows when it will ever be adressed.
I don't want to fly a helicopter where every move of the cyclic teaches you bad habits because no actual helicopter flies anything like it.
Some timestamped clips showcasing it :
https://youtu.be/FS3LvVVMrnw?t=790
-
1
-
-
Going from a end of 2020 release date into complete radio silence even a year later sounds more like an unexpected implosion than actual plan.
But it doesn't really matter, the Apache looks like a far better choice in terms of complexity and fidelity, and I'd rather not buy another PC scout heli when the first one remains so painfully mediocre. Fool me once.
-
4
-
-
On 6/26/2021 at 11:17 PM, OPEC said:
I never was very good in flying helicopters, since they never did what i wanted them to do.
Not so the Gazelle. From the first take off you immediately have the sense of being in control. It's so easy to understand what input results in what output. You can act instead of react.
Sums it up nicely. The Gazelle sure is an absolutely excellent helicopter if you've never flown one before and don't like how helicopters behave.
-
6
-
-
18 hours ago, WillyPete said:
To be honest, a lot of people DO get it, even if they don't have FFB.
Your statement has a bit of a gatekeeping scent to it, that unless people had FFB and experienced your problems then they didn't understand.
Face it, the majority of customers on DCS do not own FFB sticks, or even centered sticks with extensions.
To ignore that is to do the same thing you accuse others of doing.
Every DCS module has to be developed for table mount, short sticks with longer sticks as a secondary.
The game doesn't have to be even more exclusionary than it is.
If Polychop are supplying table top sticks to actual ALAT pilots and the pilots are telling them it "feels ok" then can they really be blamed for not knowing themselves?
Look at all the actual pilots in DCS that focus helos, like Casmo, Hell_Gato, Barundus, and Gimbal who have come out and stated clearly that it is very twitchy, but that they compensate, like all real pilots do to differences between airframes and types.
I've been in the same type of helicopter and airframe and had them both handle like they were made by different companies.
I don't care if the stick is 5 degrees to the right or left of the other for any given manoeuvre, or that it lacked power in comparison, it was my role to adjust.
Same with the dcs helo modules.
...
The problem a lot of people "don't get the angle" on is what is the real problem you have?
What about the FM stops you from actually piloting it or doing things in the game that other modules do?
Can you fly it? Can you navigate it? Can you utilise weapons or complete tasks in it?
Their attitude is "If you can do those, then what is the issue?" and it is equally valid as yours in your criticism of it.Gonna toss in my two cents on the matter.
I've been flying with both an FFB stick (with centering removed entirely via a 3rd party application since the PC FFB is still completely broken, what's up with that anyways?) and switched to a regular centering stick as of late because it has better precision for flying real low.
Even a regular centering stick it feels really wonky because just because it self-centers doesn't mean that you can't hold it in a particular position (until you trim it), which works great in any heli module except the Gazelle where you are forced to either return to center or pitch/roll until you flip over.
That's why it's not about rivet counting at all, but about diverging entirely from heli flight behaviour. We're talking about the equivalent of a racing sim where there is zero wheel centering support, and then you'll get used to the wrong behaviour and gotta re-adjust yet again when in a sim that actually has it.
Sure, I've adapted to its quirky behaviour in order to fly it. It flies perfectly fine. The systems work alright (still hate the arbitrary Viviane "locking" behaviour).
But that is a terrible criteria to go for, because then I'd might as well have saved myself the hundreds of dollars spent on modules and just play the Arma 3 helis, or War Thunder, or pretty much whatever else, because there the helis also fly fine and systems work. It's a matter of fidelity and paying for it.
18 hours ago, WillyPete said:Yes, we've all seen the videos from several years ago of flying upside down, but that's like complaining the devs in GTA didn't model cars sinking in water properly if you landed in a river or something like that. It just something you don't intend doing if you're serious about "realism" flying and it's not something any dev would seriously claim to spending time thinking about.
It's exactly like the hind is right now with its loops and rolls. "We didn't model what would happen when you loop a hind because you're not meant to be doing it!"
If it's "wrong" then all they will do is add a code switch (like PC did) that goes something like if inverted then main_rotor_eject_and_die_in_flames.
I don't think the FM is perfect. In fact I think it's lacking in a lot of aspects, but that's mainly down to me and my equipment and my general enjoyment of its role in the DCS environment as a whole.
People like those in Black Shark Den, who demand a high standard from pilots and modules, seem to do just fine with it but this rests largely on them running scenarios that favour its role.
There's too few servers that utilize it properly, and too few campaigns written for it for me to derive pleasure from it like the others.Agreed. The extreme maneuver examples of a "bad FM" never deserved as much attention as they got, and it's silly to expect the developers to do backflips in their codes just to account for all these instances.
18 hours ago, WillyPete said:I hope they do get it right, with the importing of the Kiowa FM interface replacing the code layer they had to apply to get where they have with the Gazelle.
Rewriting that code layer tells us that even they think they hit a theoretical and realistic limit to it and it needs to be wiped to play properly with DCS as it currently stands.
Hopefully they've learnt their lesson and I think they have because all communications appear to tell me that they don't just hope to sell the Kiowa to DCS players, but to Bell themselves which will have a higher selling price for them but also indicates a requirement for a much higher fidelity model.
They've basically got one last chance.
The Bell QA process does give hope. Personally I'm gonna hold out on the Kiowa until either it is truly verified as being stellar, or the Gaz gets fixed. Fool me once.
But I'm not a fan of how the Gaz was supposed to be developed in tandem with the Kiowa, whereas now it looks like they've backtracked and aren't touching it until afterwards anyways.
-
1
-
-
Some pictures of #25 that it is supposedly replicating.
The MWS is visible but still can't find any pictures of it at all with a third pylon or Iglas.
-
2
-
-
Enabling FFB still completely breaks the controls making it unusable, right?
Because I'm still waiting on this since March 2018, but maybe that was just yet another empty promise.
On 3/21/2018 at 3:57 PM, Pat01 said:We decided not to go this way and keep the ForceFeedBack use at its basic state so ForceFeedBack users can still fly the module even with ForceFeedBack uncomplete features.
-
3
-
-
Wow, okay, didn't know that we couldn't wonder why the development approach is entirely inconsistent from one module to another.
So since that means that we can't assume that there's an actual holistic approach (which many, including myself, had done up until now), but rather that it's done on a case-by-case basis, it would be great if you guys could explain specifically for BS3 where you have drawn the line between fact and fiction.
That we have to figure it out after the fact with bits and bobs from different language sections of the forum isn't exactly a great look.
-
3
-
-
14 hours ago, Fri13 said:
It is not all made up.
IGLA-V is real, equipped.
MWS is real, equipped.
New wing is real, equipped.
President-S is real, equipped.
But, none of those has likely be seen in single airframe or what was the final production standard.
Because ED is improvising with the MWS display and makin educated guesses for hints there floats around, it doesn't mean that everything else is fantasy/fictional etc.Yeah, I guess to clarify I meant by "completely made up" that there is no actual reference helicopter in existence, but rather that it's just a bunch of bits and pieces from later airframes cobbled together into something that never was a thing.
I mean, if the KA-50 was very modular and effectively allowed for adding and removing these things from any airframe with ease, then okay, but that seems like a far more modern approach (e.g. Gripen E) and doesn't seem likely when entire stub wings are changed.
-
As someone who was looking forward to the Shark upgrade, it's distressing to see that not only are there a thing here or there that might be off, but all of it is completely made up?
Because if so, that's an absolutely insane business decision, fidelity and ED's prior commitment to it is the bread and butter of why we're all here and are paying for multiple $80 modules.
What's next, a Su-25 II with R-77T missiles?
-
5
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, Fri13 said:
And if they now have changed to renew the gazelle flight model same time... It is just going to slow down both.
As I mentioned, this post was from September 2019, so it's not really anything new that should've directlyly affected the current Kiowa delay.
As for controls, I think the twitchiness of the Gazelle (and that FFB is and always will break the controls entirely) got confused with the actual FM concerns, which is unfortunate.
Personally I use a Sidewinder FFB2 with an extension, 70% saturation (except for the last 30% of stick deflection being increased to still allow maximum deflection) and simply disabled the self-centering for the Gazelle.
It works great but would be much better if the cyclic behaviour wasn't messed up. Just gotten used to flying it unrealistically, but that shouldn't be an expectation in a sim.
-
2 hours ago, Fri13 said:
I haven't read about that. I thought as well that they visit Gazelle after Kiowa is out and "polished" etc.
As far I know it was that they needed to do new development software for the Kiowa and then use that same for Gazelle later on.
But sooner we get fixed Gazelle, then better.
"Your message is clear though and it made us reconsider our priorities. As stated before, our intentions were to learn from the flaws in the Gazelle and build the new module from scratch, then implement and adapt the new code for the Gazelle module. Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel."
And that was back in September 2019, so I kinda have my doubts...
-
Imagine if the same issue was in place for any fixed wing module, though in opposite.
You'd have an aircraft that would continuously start self-stabilizing despite you applying continuous pitch and/or roll input.
People would go absolutely mental and it would never have passed any form of QA simply because of how commonly understood fixed wing behaviour is.
And since the guy in the video mentioned that he was hoping for a fix after the Kiowa is released, let's not forget that PC already stated that they would work on fixing the Gazelle *in tandem* with developing the Kiowa instead of waiting until afterwards. Still nothing as of yet.
-
1
-
-
FYI to all those who, like me, were interested in the Kiowa because it looked like it might fly similarly to its civilian counterparts - got to try the 206 myself.
On 12/4/2019 at 6:31 PM, borchi_2b said:One thing though, 206 and 58d Kiowa Warrior are defenately not feeling anything alike
and this is confirmed by all the testers that, cause they have all gone through the TF67, which is a 206
-
1
-
-
ED with 3 chopper modules that all have more or less perfect FM's.
PC with 1 chopper module that is questionable.
I know which one of those will get my money. And that doesn't just count for the FM, the Gazelle has neither complex weapons nor complex systems to make up for its price tag, and for the few things it does have it's still mediocre - I for one can't stand the arbitrary "lock-on" solution used for the Viviane that makes targeting while on the move very clunky, and multi-crew was just an empty promise that we're still waiting to ever see.
-
1
-
-
Delays are fine, but isn't the external model kinda the least important thing there is for a genuine early access program?
Couple that with having pre-orders for early access - something that frankly I don't think I've ever seen before, all titles tend to be either early access or pre-orders to a full release, never both - and it just leaves a hint of early access being treated the same exact way as a full release would be even when it's far from it.
-
1
-
-
3 hours ago, jojyrocks said:
No chance of Indian helo being turned into a full on module and that too an obscure module that is not much fit to any current maps at present. HAL LCH hasn't even got sales as it is still undergoing several updates; plus it is a VERY FRESH helo that is in a LIMITED SERIES PRODUCTION being updated on the way. So far, India has only 8 and 4 of which are Tech demo.
I don't get why you'd think it could be HAL LCH...
Fair point, the LCH might also be a stretch since there L and H hints are the loosest, and it's a fair bit newer than say the JF-17.
But that still leaves us with the stronger hints of HAL being the developer, and the older chopper that the LCH was derived from - the HAL Dhruv.
And the plot twist that it was part of the Ecuadorian airforce, where Razbam primarily is from. Granted, it doesn't seem to have been much of a success there
-
Well at least we already know it's gonna be a rotorcraft/heli.
-
2
-
-
10 hours ago, Buzzles said:
Yes, once they've finished the Kiowa:
Two weeks later, after facing community backlash, they said they would develop both in parallel instead of just leaving the Gazelle on the shelf.
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4045817&postcount=33
Considering how the Gazelle isn't being updated, the Kiowa isn't out yet and wont be anytime soon because of the Mi-24 entering EA (staggered releases) I dont think the Gazelle will be updated in a long, long, long time.
So, as usual, expect very little from polychop and keep that in mind when considering the Kiowa.
-
2
-
-
What I think the secret module is :
"In darkest days, in blackest nights" = Green lantern oath.
The name of the main character in Green Lantern = Hal Jordan.
Hal = Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL)
The capitalized letter from the first teaser was H in Horizon.
The capitalized letter from the second teaser was L in Little.
HAL produces a combat helicopter called the HAL LCH (Light Combat Helicopter). So expect the next teaser to capitalize C.
Coincidence? I think not.
-
2
-
-
I don't get the need for starting (again) a new argument. Polychop already acknowledged their FM had to be rebuild and that they will do it after the Kiowa release. At this point you're just beating a dead horse.
From what I saw in the Barandus and the Casmo youtube videos, the Kiowa FM is as close as we can get from the real aircraft. Having two pilots with several decades of experience in total saying the FM is that good is reassuring regarding the future work on the Gazelle.
Give the team some slack - at least until the new FM is done and release.
"Now we will focus on finding ways to develop both the Gazelle and the new module in parallel."
https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4045817&postcount=33
Since Sven already mentioned that pilots all have varying opinions, then why should we care about "two pilots say it's good" or "our pilot testers disagree with the forum ones" at all then?
It cuts both ways.
-
I enjoy the Huey and Mi-8 more because they feel like real flying real helis with character while the Gazelle is so easy and ignores so many behaviours that it's borderline arcade, which isn't fun.
-
The "locking" functionality doesn't play by the same rules as the player input, so it's even stronger than what is even possible for you to add. That's why, even at max deflection, the camera will still slew too slowly to fight the yaw rate.
There's not even any way to evaluate whether it behaves realistically or not since there's no way to deactivate the locking functionality, and the control of the Viviane seems centered around heavily relying on it rather than based on the real thing.
Hopefully the Kiowa will be based on the real behaviour and then any shortcuts will work within those constraints - rather than independent of them, which leads to these messy results. Not really what I would consider a high quality product.
-
RIP Tunnan/Draken/Gripen dreams :(
Is the flight dynamics ever gonna get fixed?
in SA-342M Gazelle
Posted
To be fair, the fact that a helicopter FM has the cyclic behaviour of a fixed wing aircraft (13:00 and 24:30) is a pretty huge deal. If a fixed wing module was released with the cyclic behaviour of a chopper, there'd be an outrage, but the fixed wing playerbase is larger so there'd be more familiarity with the issue. I have zero clue how this even got past the QA process.
The other FM issues are footnotes in comparison and the saturation issue is easily fixed by the user.
But all I know is that while it works fine to fly the Gazelle, it teaches me terrible habits because the basics are wrong, and if I wanted simplistic arcade solutions I'd stick to arcade games.