Bearfoot Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 I don't think you needed to double post that, we got it.. It was not a double post --- the post contents are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asset Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 Thank you very much Mickt014 for your answers. I wasn't aware that the French and British versions are so different. This makes judging FM quality even harder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mickt014 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 I don't think you needed to double post that, we got it.. I guess you didn't really get it after all :music_whistling: There are old Pilots and there are Bold Pilots.....but there are no Old Bold Pilots :pilotfly: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ESAc_matador Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) WRONG POST Edited April 21, 2017 by ESAc_matador Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocket Sized Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) 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. Most helis are flown very much by feel through the seat and sound of the mechanics. :pilotfly: Try the Mi-8. As others said, there's a sort of "what if" factor when flying virtual aircraft. In my case, I asked "what if i tried to do aerobatics in the Mi-8?" If I pull too much G, the tail breaks off. Negative G makes the main rotor strike tail boom. If I pull too much collective, the rotor RPM droops and the main generators go offline, disabling the stabilization system. If I exceed a certain airspeed, I get retreating blade stall and the aircraft begins vibrating and pitching up. This right here, is what separates DCS from every other flight simulator on the market today. This is the level of detail that EVERY DCS module should strive to achieve. You ask "what if," and it answers! /rant Edited April 20, 2017 by Pocket Sized DCS modules are built up to a spec, not down to a schedule. In order to utilize a system to your advantage, you must know how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ST0RM Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 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. Most helis are flown very much by feel through the seat and sound of the mechanics. :pilotfly: +1 This backwards approach to learning modules makes me cringe. Its like everyone wants to prove how bad something is, instead of seeing the glaringly beautiful work that makes up more of the aircraft. Granted, some flaws are present in the Gazelle. But many of the nay-sayers arent qualified to point them out, having zero experience in the type. "It just doesnt feel right" without a true reference has no way to help fix what problems are there. Even if you've flown a Huey, R-22 or someting else, not everything compares. When a Gazelle pilot says its fairly close, I'd accept that at face value and move forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myHelljumper Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 +1 This backwards approach to learning modules makes me cringe. Its like everyone wants to prove how bad something is, instead of seeing the glaringly beautiful work that makes up more of the aircraft. Granted, some flaws are present in the Gazelle. But many of the nay-sayers arent qualified to point them out, having zero experience in the type. "It just doesnt feel right" without a true reference has no way to help fix what problems are there. Even if you've flown a Huey, R-22 or someting else, not everything compares. When a Gazelle pilot says its fairly close, I'd accept that at face value and move forward. This, the aircraft have problems but PC did a wonderful job with it. We have to remembrer that PC is the only third party doing helicopters at the moment (Belsimtek is very close to ED so I won't say they are third party in the same way Polychop is) and that the gazelle is the only module with working multi-crew that does not come from ED :). Helljumper - M2000C Guru Helljumper's Youtube https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarecrow84 Posted April 20, 2017 Share Posted April 20, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited April 20, 2017 by Scarecrow84 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rotorhead11 Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 As a rule of thumb, and it is a rule of thumb and not law, 300 ft per min descent, less than 30 Knts airspeed, you are entering the danger zone. Stay away from this and no VRS danger. Not sure the excitement to test VRS. In real life it is not a nice place to be and you avoid it like the plague. To recognise it you take it up high, invoke it so you can see what it feels like, lots of sloppy controls, fly out and then never go back there. :thumbup: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flagrum Posted April 22, 2017 Share Posted April 22, 2017 (edited) +1 This backwards approach to learning modules makes me cringe. Its like everyone wants to prove how bad something is, instead of seeing the glaringly beautiful work that makes up more of the aircraft. Granted, some flaws are present in the Gazelle. But many of the nay-sayers arent qualified to point them out, having zero experience in the type. "It just doesnt feel right" without a true reference has no way to help fix what problems are there. Even if you've flown a Huey, R-22 or someting else, not everything compares. When a Gazelle pilot says its fairly close, I'd accept that at face value and move forward. It is not an approach to learn a module - I never said that! And if I do that, I don't do it to prove where a module is faulty - I never said that either! First of all, it is a way to explore things - and with things I mean the aircraft, not the module. The difference, again, is to explore the capabilities of what the aircraft can do, not what the module or the module developer can do. Computers, computer games and also simulations give us freedom to do things that we could not do otherwise. That is what it makes fun, right? If I want it to be exactly like in real life, well, I would do it in real life. Yes, sometimes this leads to discoveries that a modelled aircraft is lacking in one aspect or another. But if that is explainable, for example in a situation that can not be simulated exactly because nobody can possibly know what exactly would happen ("is the tail boom of a helo strong enough to land on it vertically?" ;-), or for example that calculating the results would be too demanding for our computers ("which parts of which sub components would how be damaged by the fractions of a bullet that hit the 22th rived of section X? And would the swinging/vibrating hydraulics line be cut open by 1 or 2 milimeters?"). But for generally well understood concepts I would hope for reasonable simulation results, even at the limits of normal, real life, operating parameters. And if I find something that seems unreasonable ... but can be explained in a reasonable way, then I am the first to admit that I am happy to learn something new. "It is good as it is" is, btw. NOT a explanation - an explanation must always answer the "why". Edited April 22, 2017 by Flagrum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sorcer3r Posted April 23, 2017 Share Posted April 23, 2017 I can just say (again) that from time to time a german military helicopter pilot flies with us in dcs. He owns all dcs helo modules and still the gazelle is currently is favorite module. He hasn't tested the "extremes" of the FM if he has time he flies missions with us and he is flying like he would fly in RL (more or less ;) but it is awesome to fly with him because you see that he knows how to fly in a combat area and you can learn a lot just following him... ) Anyways ;) is the FM perfect? No it is not but IMO it is not so bad that it deserves this harsh critic. ps: currently I only fly the gazelle in dcs. I stopped flying the huey because for me the missing engine overheat is a showstopper compared to the flaws of the gazelle FM. [sIGPIC]http://i1293.photobucket.com/albums/b582/sorcerer17/sorcf16-b_zpsycmnwuay.gif[/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borchi_2b Posted April 27, 2017 Share Posted April 27, 2017 about the militar pilots, yes they are there. I can tell from first hand cause I regularly fly with a us army Ex OH58D Kiowa Warrior pilot who is transitioning to a different helo right now in multicrew or we take hueys or jets or each flys a an own gazelle, depends on the stuff we want to do. I did learn a lot from him too and well these guys are awesome teachers. I sometimes think they reflect thier own instructors in some way. You should see wht he does with the huey in dcs. last time he lost his tailrotor and still flew and landed her. it was awesome to watch from nb2 and he explained afterwards the whole process how to land a helicopter with loss of tailrotor. so yes enjoy the guy, i bet you have a great time http://www.polychop-sims.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts