Gazelle FM bugs?

[Coxy_99]

Im pretty sure pollychop will look into it or already are give them a god damn chance besides shooting them down and its not just here but in other threads on 3rd parties also, One point was the gazelle flies on rails well everyone cried about the flight model being to hard, Btw im not trolling but give them time. BTW pollychop keep up the good work :thumbup:

[Pikey]

There is an easier way to handle this, simply wait till it's done and postpone future purchases based on the current status. I give every developer a first buy, and make my decisions based on my own view of product quality. There's 3 third party devs I will not buy until I see completed products for, and two that I will pre purchase on based on their quality.

 

There's simply no better way to exert pressure as a customer, what's been said, has been said, and mostly repeated.

[jjohnson241]

There is an easier way to handle this, simply wait till it's done and postpone future purchases based on the current status. I give every developer a first buy, and make my decisions based on my own view of product quality. There's 3 third party devs I will not buy until I see completed products for, and two that I will pre purchase on based on their quality.

 

There's simply no better way to exert pressure as a customer, what's been said, has been said, and mostly repeated.

 

+1.

The most important feedback the developer receives is from the customer, not "RL Pilots".

[doveman]

+1.

The most important feedback the developer receives is from the customer, not "RL Pilots".

Well for a SIM I'd say it's a bit of both. Customers who've never flown IRL or at least never flown the particular aircraft are not best placed to say there's something wrong with the FM but still, if there's something clearly wrong that's obvious to even them, the fact that RL pilots have praised it won't make customers ignore the problems and buy it.

 

I'd say RL pilot's feedback is useful but still needs to be checked against other data sources to avoid relying on it too much and reduce the risk of missing something that might only become apparent under circumstances that weren't tested.

 

Personally, I'd be more prepared to buy an early-access module where the FM was spot on but the weapons systems weren't yet usable or there were no in-cockpit clickable switches, as at least I could (try to) learn how to fly her well and then learn how to deploy her effectively later, once the rest of the features are done. With a buggy FM however, there's a risk of getting a bad impression of flying her, picking up bad habits, having to relearn how to fly her when the FM is finally fixed, which rather puts me off as it's not an effective use of my time.

 

So yeah, I'll wait for at least the FM to be right before buying a module as I'm not interested in buying an aircraft and then having to wait for the devs to get round to fixing it before I can start using it. Not trying to say anyone's wrong to buy modules early to support the devs though.

[MAD-MM]

Did any of recognize you buy bought a AFM with the Gazelle not a EFM? for this reason found the Flight Model pretty well.

[doveman]

Did any of recognize you buy bought a AFM with the Gazelle not a EFM? for this reason found the Flight Model pretty well.

Actually it's been clarified in another thread that all third-party modules are EFM, which just means it's an External FM and not something ED have created. ED's own modules are designated either AFM, AFM+ or PFM and EFM modules can be anything between AFM and PFM. So have the devs always said that the Gazelle is only intended to have an AFM-level FM?

[MAD-MM]

Actually it's been clarified in another thread that all third-party modules are EFM, which just means it's an External FM and not something ED have created. ED's own modules are designated either AFM, AFM+ or PFM and EFM modules can be anything between AFM and PFM. So have the devs always said that the Gazelle is only intended to have an AFM-level FM?

 

AFM (Advanced Flight Model) that simulates all flight phases and characteristics of the Gazelle

[Buzzles]

Mad-MM is right, the store page is pretty explicit it's an AFM:

 

Key Features of DCS: SA342 Gazelle:

 

• Accurate and highly detailed six-degrees-freedom (6DOF) cockpit and external model
  
• Mouse interactive cockpit with authentic systems modeling
  
• Fully modeled weapon system including weapons sight and HOT 3
  
• Exciting and challenging campaign
  
• Interactive training missions
  
• AFM (Advanced Flight Model) that simulates all flight phases and characteristics of the Gazelle
  
• Inclusive flight manual
  
• Gazelle skins covering many countries

[doveman]

Thanks. Admittedly I didn't fully read the store page after reading about the FM issues but it's good to see the devs have been honest and upfront about what level of FM they're offering.

[hermes7226]

Developers, please comment post Maverick Su-35S.

[RabidRider]

Great post Maverick! There's something fundamentally flawed in the Gazelle FM, and I don't think this can be fixed with a few tweaks. Right now, it feels like something for FSX. Untill Polychop get this right, I won't be buying any of their upcoming modules. BST otoh, they've nailed heli flight dynamics.

[hermes7226]

I think we should not expect from a Polychop serious unit approximate to the professional simulator, where you can practice, even if you are real pilots from both the BST or the ED, it is just a toy, with a good visual model quite interesting gameplay and it should be easy to accept and settle down. Polychop need to simplify the contrary unreal control your helicopter, to enter into code-effects inherent in helicopters, such as the ground effect, the VRS, at least in highly simplified form, and get a pretty good module specifically for the game. And to argue and prove Polychop useless because the last patch FM's been six months and nothing has been done and will be made. They shall make a similar unit at least from DODO 206 in FSX, and that is enough. A new professional trainer already coded - Mi-24 from BST!

[Fredo_69]

I think we should not expect from a Polychop serious unit approximate to the professional simulator, where you can practice, even if you are real pilots from both the BST or the ED, it is just a toy, with a good visual model quite interesting gameplay and it should be easy to accept and settle down. Polychop need to simplify the contrary unreal control your helicopter, to enter into code-effects inherent in helicopters, such as the ground effect, the VRS, at least in highly simplified form, and get a pretty good module specifically for the game. And to argue and prove Polychop useless because the last patch FM's been six months and nothing has been done and will be made. They shall make a similar unit at least from DODO 206 in FSX, and that is enough. A new professional trainer already coded - Mi-24 from BST!

Hi Hermes!

I'm having great difficulty understanding your point in your last post.

Language barrier...?

/Fredo

[hermes7226]

Yes! Google translator brain break!

[Fredo_69]

Yes! Google translator brain break!

Ok :)

Well, I to hope we will get some thorough feedback on Mavericks post from the Devs!

[borchi_2b]

I would be really happy if the bashing could maybe stop and people can get back to constructiv critisism. Bashing will get you nowhere besides producing deaf ears, not just on our side.

 

today I had a meeting with 2 real pilots, not just simulations wanabees like I am one of them.

4000+ hours on a gazelle should give this pilot enough reference and experiance to actually state what feels wrong. Contrary to every not pilot, this thing does not fly like a huey in reallife. We talked about many things that are mentioned by the community guys.

 

a statement of the pilot was that this community, where he is also flying and reads the posts, should not assume anything that they do not know about this helicopter.

We will add new stuff in the future, but a bit patience is always needed and if i my memory is correct the gazelle is not bad when we talk about bug management and the time it took in the past ;-)

 

So I still hope everybody had a nice christmas and will have a happy new year.

 

for the forum admins I recommend to close this threat cause it seems to me and the team that people rather like to bash developers instead of posting realistic and well communicated critisism .

 

cheers

[Fredo_69]

I would be really happy if the bashing could maybe stop and people can get back to constructiv critisism. Bashing will get you nowhere besides producing deaf ears, not just on our side.

 

today I had a meeting with 2 real pilots, not just simulations wanabees like I am one of them.

4000+ hours on a gazelle should give this pilot enough reference and experiance to actually state what feels wrong. Contrary to every not pilot, this thing does not fly like a huey in reallife. We talked about many things that are mentioned by the community guys.

 

a statement of the pilot was that this community, where he is also flying and reads the posts, should not assume anything that they do not know about this helicopter.

We will add new stuff in the future, but a bit patience is always needed and if i my memory is correct the gazelle is not bad when we talk about bug management and the time it took in the past ;-)

 

So I still hope everybody had a nice christmas and will have a happy new year.

 

for the forum admins I recommend to close this threat cause it seems to me and the team that people rather like to bash developers instead of posting realistic and well communicated critisism .

 

cheers

Hello Borchi!

Well that was not the type of response I was hoping for - for shure...

Did You even read Mavericks posts? (Those are serously "realistic and well communicated" criticism.)

Do You think You can continue this charade much longer?

 

Cheers, Merry Christmas & a Happy New Year to everybody!

Edited December 27, 2016 by Fredo_69

[BIGNEWY]

Polychop-simulations have listened to the feedback and will review and tweak as necessary

 

Thread closed

 

 

1.10 Product feedback and constructive criticism is encouraged when provided in a mature and courteous manner. However, feedback that is abusive, insulting or condescending is not welcome. Additionally, to bring up a particular issue repeatedly after it has already been acknowledged will be considered "trolling" - in such cases a warning will be issued to the author and the post will be removed.