Scarecrow84

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

Do you even translational lift, bro? :D

I'm sorry I hurt your feelings, Bearfoot. I will try to be more sensitive for you in the future.

Bearfoot: You are the only one here engaging in breathless hysterics, Francis. I didn't say or in any way expect the sim to be modeled for my particular system. Others said the obvious control movement issues were reflective of the critics not having to-scale controls. I pointed out typical systems on the market are desktop sticks and its reasonable to assume this type of setup is what the sim is made for. Regardless of the stick throw, the dynamics are still off, but here I go using big words on you.

The Gaz in the video doesn't have the sight, no. I really doubt there would be such a huge difference in basic pitch/roll/power dynamics and control movements due to that.

The point of the GIF is to show the range of travel during a normal maneuver that, if you watch the video, is simply accelerating during level flight. The instructor pilot has his hand off the stick in the first frame, because the student is flying during that frame. His hand being off the stick is irrelevant, it still shows what the student pilot/cyclic is doing. He is giving forward cyclic while adding power/collective. The GIF shows the range of travel of the stick for that non-extreme maneuver, but the real point was that the cyclic stays in the far forward position as is typical in a helicopter. I think we can assume the simulator is designed for the joysticks that are on the market, and not modified ones with long extensions or exotic $300 models designed that way (which I would like to purchase myself, if all this gets ironed out, btw). I thought it was a given that stick extensions require axis tuning to account for the extra travel. Anyway, the range of animated stick travel in the Gazelle module looks about right to me. But, if you were to move the cyclic during flight as shown in the video, or anywhere near that, you would be nosediving into the ground. Or doing one of its signature -9g front flips (kidding, I think they fixed that...) In the sim, only a tiny fraction of that full range of motion is used for what we can see requires a much bigger fraction IRL. And in the sim, there is the odd behavior of the cyclic returning to center after every movement. Otherwise, the input will over-correct. It needs work, and insisting otherwise is only going to lessen any chance of us seeing that happen, IMO. Not to mention the standard we are setting up for the 105.

No, you're right. They claim to have some top secret video collection, so obviously one of us critics just went back in time and faked the stick movements for that 1997 documentary. As for the point about turbulence, he's not dealing with low speed turbulence but flying straight and level at high speed.

Nope. Straight and level flight: