Scarecrow84

3) Original with improvements. It was nimble and tight, at least. Note: starting from scratch with Belsimtek consultation wasn't listed as an option....

For the record, here is the answer a guy who claims to be a Gazelle pilot (Mickt) gave regarding the points I raised in the now closed thread about cyclic behavior ("An Answer to my Question..."): Asset: "Can you maybe answer this guys question regarding stick position in fast flight: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php...3&postcount=16" Mickt: "without SAS fitted the heli goes faster the more the cyclic is moved forward and held in place, it will not return to centre. Power will also be reqd and an input from the pedals. All 3 controls have to be coordinated at all times." So, there is something off about the cyclic control, unless the French Gazelle SAS, blades and sight somehow change it completely - in a way that makes it unlike helicopters in general. Also, Mickt said: "Not saying you do, but what is the point of picking holes in the module and expecting the devs to make it as realistic as possible if all you need is an arcade version which would probably be a lot cheaper. No matter how hard the devs FM the gazelle or any other module, you will never have it work just like the real thing especially for £50." The Huey was 50 bucks, wasn't it? I am not trying to stir things up further, and if we have learned anything it's that complaining goes nowhere with getting things improved. There is nothing wrong with approaching the module as a "toy" (Rotorhead11) or "arcade" version (mickt). However, I think this shows that there are different attitudes at play here, and different expectations. Maybe real pro heli pilots have less of an interest in hi fidelilty simulation because they can do the real thing? I don't know. Just my two cents.

Hi Mickt014, As a real life Gazelle pilot, what do you make of the points raised in this thread regarding the sim's cyclic behavior? If you don't mind... https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181563 Edit: I see now that Asset already asked Mickt this question, basically.

Hmm, I really don't know why we see such a difference. Did you fly the original FM, from the first release? I think a few other people share my impression...but who knows. ZimmerDylan, I think we got in a non-argument over semantics. It's true that a good bit of subjectivity is factoring in when people get such different impressions. In "theory", the FM is supposed to approximate an objective representation of how the thing flies, though. Not that it would ever "feel" exactly the same, of course, due to lack of acceleration forces, different control geometry, etc. But, as the Huey shows us (IMO) a good approximation is pretty great.

I get solid 40-60 fps, that's not an issue. I'm not sure what you mean in your last sentence. I'm referring to lag between control movements and attitude changes. I have set curves of -10 in pitch and roll and it doesn't seem to help much. I remember the original flight model being really light and twitchy, very different in that respect from the current one...which hasn't changed since August, as far as I recall.

The way a helicopter responds to control inputs is a function of a set of real world phenomena referred to as "physics". That has little to do with anyone's feelings and subjective tastes, Zimmer.

It's all subjective? What does that mean? Is it all a "social construct" or something? I agree with others who perceive the current FM as laggy, or mushy, for a light helicopter. It's almost like you give a cyclic input, then return the stick to center, then wait for the attitude change. The reviews by professional pilots posted earlier describe the real chopper as highly responsive. Responsiveness and stability are two different things. The fact that the FM changed so drastically after the first FM update shows that they were shooting in the dark to begin with. THAT was a responsive FM that felt like a light helicopter, albeit with problems. Belsimtek has actual scientists and aerospace engineers on board, not just "coders". I can't understand why people are still defending this FM. There are multiple pro pilots I know of who are avoiding pointing out the obvious publicly simply to not ruffle feathers, and hurt feelings. I personally don't have such concern - and it's not the $50 at this point, it's the literal years worth of waiting and being led on. It's been almost an entire year since release, and that was after a glacial rate of development.

I think the water looks awesome. The grass-in-shade effect is really good to see as well.

Well, that makes one of us. I showed the FM to Bill O'reilly, and he wasn't impressed either...

Welp, there goes another Friday, fam. I was wondering something. The last person to comment on the latest announcement of an announcement on facebook seems to be under the impression these "legal issues" are about Airbus. Anybody know if this is the case? ( I know Polychop cant/wont respond here) The legal issues are referred to as "internal", so this kind of threw me for a loop. Hopefully it was just someone who didn't know what they were talking about. I thought the Airbus licensing issues were ironed out long ago. Thanks

+1000 I'm going to try to not even get hooked into the next waiting phase for Caucasus. Hopefully Normandy will have a good multiplayer presence...

That dense forest shown in the latest Normandy video makes me think they might really be able to pull off a Vietnam map...

For those of us with standards, nothing short of a completely re-worked Gazelle flight model will redeem Polychop and get the 105 back on our "to buy" lists. And not "eventually" - soon.

late May, wow...

Can we get an ETA on this download? Are you accepting donations? Also, maybe a dumb question, but I've never been big on mods... Will this be a Huey skin? And would that mean it wouldn't be available on say, the Virtual Aerobatics server unless they add it to the mission? Thanks

This looks awesome...can't wait to give it a whirl.

Pretty sure I see grass in shadow in that first pic... This looks awesome.

Thanks for the correction. Was this the same guy gpelfort was referring to above? I agree, we should just drop it until further info comes out. I think everyone has made their points. For the record, I can in a way understand why some people find it so distasteful to criticize Polychop, considering the number of us customers versus the man hours involved. It's not like anybody's laughing all the way to the bank here, from what I can tell... But I do hope for some major improvements, and especially hope for a top notch FM for the BO105.

Ok, so we are talking about Rotorhead11. Anyone can look up that conversation. It ended with him getting banned for his inability to carry on a discussion without stamping his feet and calling people "simpletons", "dullards" and "schoolchildren" for asking clear, intelligent questions. He also referred to DCS as a "toy" and used the worn out mischaracterization trick of pretending like we expect some perfect flight model. The Huey isn't perfect, but it set a standard of expectations for rotor flight dynamics. The aerospace engineer/pilot who posted the in depth physics questions carries alot more weight than some government technician with a massively inflated ego. Thanks for confirming that he worked for Polychop - that's what I suspected.

So get him to answer one or more of our simple, straightforward questions. Adults don't make arguments that amount to "I know a super hero magic pilot man who said so and so"

All one has to do is watch the online cockpit videos of the IRL Gazelle flying to see it does not fly like the real thing (or any other real helicopter). I explained this fact based evidence in painstaking detail, but most will just accept half hearted appeals to "authority" instead. Was the gazelle squadron that is supposedly using the DCS module given this module by Polychop? Are we to expect them to bad-mouth a free piece of software? Are they really using it for stick and rudder training purposes? Do they refer to it as a non physics-based "toy" like the gaz pilot who chimed in before?

Of course they have different FMs but they operate on the same basic principles. They shouldn't be as different as a helicopter from a moon lander.

I agree, the original FM was better. It at least wasn't laggy and over-stable at the same time...

I've heard a retired Army Huey pilot say the Huey module is spot on, actually. And he didn't just drop into a forum to say this and dodge any specific questions posed about the FM. The gazelle flight model is not on the level of the Huey, not even close. One of the Polychop guys talks in the interview about how the original FM (which he claims was something like 80% done, maybe more), could do front flips. He seemed to think this was really cute.

DocWilly posted a series of questions and answers with an EC135 Pilot: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=181563&page=3 This does not get into the odd cyclic/power dynamics (re centering of cyclic during all phases of flight, etc.) The only IRL Gazelle guy I know of wouldn't answer any specific questions, thought of it as a "toy", attacked anyone asking intelligent questions, etc. "It's fun once you stop expecting it to fly like a helicopter" - current US Army Helicopter pilot, summer 2016