Jump to content

An Answer to my Flight Model Question


Scarecrow84

Recommended Posts

And to end on a fatality...

 

Guys, you are the same people complaining about the "FM supposed issues because a pilot on a different version told me, in the comments on a YT video, that it's wrong", who then, for example, told me "Wow bravo Dimitriov, excellent Campaign this operation Dixmude, immersive, great".

 

And well, thank you, but the ironic part is that it is far, far far far far far away from being realistic. It's as much realistic as the last Battlefield Campaign (you know this game where USA save France during WWI). I looked at the public, and I adapted my work to it, not because it's a dumb public, or any stupid feeling like this, but simply because I knew that you would have more fun playing such campaign than a fully realistic one where you wouldn't understand a s*** at radio and perhaps, if you're lucky, fire one missile on a rock with supposed insurgents hidden behind in 50 hours of flight.

 

So if you want to be correct in your point of view, don't tell on one side that the Gazelle is unrealistic and the Campaign is great, tell me that the Campaign is a huge piece of arcade bullshit ;)

 

But no, you won't, because you are gamers, not real pilots looking for an extremely accurate training !

 

<3 x2

 

Nicolas


Edited by dimitriov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 153
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Wow, Dimitrov, I can sense a huge shitstorm coming in ...

 

Before I start, I understand that you are part of the PolyChop team? You developed the campaign, but you are not actually one of the developers, correct? I have to ask this because often you make the impression (at least to me) that you are speaking on behalf of the devs. But I just go and assume that this is just your personal opinion, ok?

 

Now on topic ... you are right. And you are so totally wrong. If you read the entire thread, you'll notice that it is primarily about a few specific issues that the community thinks that need either correction or at least explanation. But you are dismissing them all as "well within the 5% of expectable realism". Really? If you really believe that they can't do better, then you are actually doing a huge disservice to PolyChop (or any 3rd party dev) here.

 

Well, you are right, a sim, a PC sim - or any simulator - can never replicate every aspect of an aircraft. But, guess what, we do understand that. But saying, a DCS module must be of lesser fidelity than a professional trainer sim, is not helping. At. All. In my opinion you are rather dismissing the work of the devs here ...

 

IF a DCS mod would offer only 5% fidelity, then any professional sim would also only give you something in the range of 4 - 6 %. Professional sims are not better because they are more expensive. They are more expensive mostly because they sell much less. If a DCS module is sold 1000, 2000 or dunno, 5000 times, a professional simulator might be sold perhaps 10-20 times. And they are more expensive because of all the hardware (real cockpit, motion platform, etc.)

 

And these professional simulators also often lack certain aspects of a real aircraft. For example, many (most?) are less capable graphics wise (of the outside world). Sometimes even the flight model might be not really be better than what we get - if for example the systems and avionics handling is the focus of such a sim.

 

In this community there are quite a few people who know a lot about aircraft. Many mostly self-taught, having "only" theoretical knowledge, but also some real pilots. And dismissing all of them as being people similar to BF and War Thunder players is ... well, insulting imo. I am not talking about the phrasing you used (I know, that was not meant to be insulting), but instead talking about the mind set you seem the community to have.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What Dimitriov says is true.

 

I've seen both sides of the medal, from brief experiences in a real helicopter to a full-blown level D simulator.

 

If DCS was aiming to be a level D, the system and hardware requirements would probably say:

1) Real Cyclic and Collective

2) At the very least 6 PCs with top-of-the-line hardware

3) A motion dome with actuators

4) A perfect replication of the actual cockpit with properly calibrated pedals, cyclic, collective, throttles, etc.

5) Several full-time employees with high salaries

6) Clearance to access restricted/classified material

7) Some crazy electricity bill

8) Pay a couple of millions for the sim, and hundreds of dollars per hour of flight time

 

Many times, I felt this urge to argue for pages and pages. However, one day I came to the realization that my relationship with flight sims will only ever be as good as I allow it to be. I can choose how I want to approach DCS: as something that will make me feel constantly disappointed for not being "perfect" or as something that is good enough for me to learn new stuff to a "good enough" level of fidelity and enjoy myself. I take DCS for what it is rather than what it's not, and I found myself having a much healthier relationship with flight sims ever since.

 

Just because perfection is unattainable doesn't mean we shouldn't try to aim towards it though. FM discussions have always been, and always will be part of flight simulator forums. My personal approach to FM feedback is: if you have hard data that you can share, please do share. If not, find some to back up your claims. "I don't think it's right" just doesn't cut it unless you've flown 2500+ hours in the very helicopter you're discussing about. "I don't think it's right" doesn't help the engineer/coder at all. It doesn't help anyone. More often than not, people feel a genuine need to help but don't act in a way to produce meaningful results.

 

I found the "You've never flown a Huey" bit to be needlessly harsh though. While not perfect by any stretch of the imagination (and between you and I a level D sim will never be perfect either for reasons I won't go into on these forums), I think we need to give credit to the mad geniuses behind the FM code that gave us the FM behaviour we have now (either for the Huey, Mi-8, Ka-50 or Gazelle) that needs only one medium-end PC to process.

 

For a 60 dollar package and the level of expertise, effort and selflessness needed to develop these modules, I think DCS offers an incredible bang for the buck.


Edited by Charly_Owl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite interesting to see someone affiliated(I think?) with Polychop have so little faith in their abilities.

If instead of the condescension, dismissal and dodging of basic and simple questions regarding the FM they could have adressed them directly we probably could have avoided several months of these threads.

 

Lashing out and insulting people is only going to make it worse, answer with specifics and facts, only that will quiet doubters and even then some might remain. But at least you'll have the moral high ground then, unlike now.

 

Guys, you are the same people complaining about the "FM supposed issues because a pilot on a different version told me, in the comments on a YT video, that it's wrong", who then, for example, told me "Wow bravo Dimitriov, excellent Campaign this operation Dixmude, immersive, great".

 

It's exactly this kind of dodging and misdirects that keep the discussion from going anywhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Poly annouced the Gazelle as AFM Model, some People dont want to read this it is like the old SU-25 you can not buy a AFM and expect the non Puls ultra PFM.

Another thing is there was serval People with Q&A to EC-135 and a real Gazelle Pilot wo found the FM quit nice, but after all the unhappy People hunt them down even spam them with PM.

Next one is Poly said again they check Fly behavor with pilot again, so i understand why is dimitriov so upset with notorious annoying People they know exact how the Gazelle to behave in the Air.

I am quite happy with current state of Gazelle.


Edited by MAD-MM

Once you have tasted Flight, you will forever walk the Earth with your Eyes turned Skyward.

 

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

9./JG27

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not anymore working with any 3rd party nor speaking in the name of anyone except me ;) I'm not saying that their work is bad, really not. But they simply cannot simulate many things, because, again, of the time needed, the limits of the simulator, the cost, etc etc etc. And this is the same for all the DCS modules.

 

And yes I'm a bit upset.

 

I'm a bit upset because many people in the ED community say that dev work is bad, is this, is that because they suppose, after having watched a YT video or discussed with an helicopter pilot (never on the same helicopter, never on the same version but hey, he is pilot, he knows everything, he is god !), that there are issues on FM, on this on that.

 

But again, you are piloting a computer, not a helicopter. And you cannot ask for the same level of realism for a pro sim and for DCS. That's not the same world. You cannot ask for devs to deliver you a real helicopter, because noone is able to deliver you a real helicopter on DCS. Not because devs are bad, but because the simulator architecture is bad.

 

All you managed to get by behaving like this, and considering that devs are liars etc etc, is that well : radio silence, no devs on forums. And sometimes, a guy like me, who knows them and sees you pursuing in "your very interesting debates", simply feel the need to come and tell you the truth right in the face so you can understand... When I asked some devs from some 3rd parties "Why don't you come anymore on forums", the answer wasn't even angry, simply "They always say the same, and we don't have time to spend in repeating ourselves indefinitely". And well, that's simple, look how many post on FM were made here ! We are about 40 posts !!!!

 

Nicolas


Edited by dimitriov
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's completely understandable that it upsets you, some take it way too far.

 

I would like to correct one misconception you have though, DCS is every bit as capable as any professional simulator, it would have to be seeing as it forms the base of one.

DCS isnt based on a professional simulator, a professional simulator is based on DCS. It is completely capable of what people are asking for.

 

The engine is not the limiting factor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope.

 

Sorry but I know how the ED code works. That's a nope. There are tons of things which aren't modeled. I don't know if it's possible for ED to add these parts on core code (maybe is it what you mean), but the 3rd parties simply don't have any access to the core code (or at least to its modification).

 

A very simple example (I've got many others but I would use french vocabulary so it's a bit pointless on an english forum) is the fight in mountain, which is nothing like IRL. There is simply nothing about the mountain flight in the ED code, while it has IRL many many many specificities which lead to the need of a "mountain flight license".

 

You cannot ask 3rd parties to code in place of ED. That's as simple as this. If I came here and kicked asses a bit (happens rarely let's be honest), it's to make people realize their behavior : that's a game, with a plus plus level of accuracy, but still a game. We call it a simulator to make us think that "waw, that's not call of duty", which is true, but not so much more on many points...

 

Last time a real Gazelle pilot came to give you his opinion (I'm talking about an ALAT pilot on the specific M version, who worked with Poly), he got answered that he was an ignorant by a wikipedia engineer... Then he told "I'll never do this again".

 

Understand that except if you're both pilot and engineer on the Sa-342 M variant, Poly has far more informations than you will ever get, directly coming for Airbus, real pilots etc etc... Dozens of docs specially dealing with the Sa-342 M version, its FM, its systems etc etc. Google has nothing like this, like a civilian Sa-341 pilot (even if he tries to imagine, that's not the same beast).

 

And they produced the most accurate possible sim ON DCS. With its limitations...

 

Well, not "arrogant" or something like this, but let me quote : "You know nothing John Snow" ;)

 

Nicolas

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With its limitations...

 

But the Polychop chopper only has an AFM, right? So am I correct in assuming that you can't really judge how comprehensive the EFM/PFM modules are, since you've never worked with the code on that level?

 

Not bashing, mind. Just wanted to point this out.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't get it.

 

Dimitrov (and Coxy), afaik nobody in this thread is bashing the devs. If I am mistaken, please provide a link ... Instead, in this thread are basically two factions discussing a few issues - one faction is claiming "I wonder if this or that is correct ... because I have no idea how this behaviour could be explained" and the other one is basically like "Nah, all is good".

 

Yes, this back and forth is somewhat tireing, but your posting earlier isn't really helping either ... as you are just siding with the "Na, all is good (within the expectable 5%)"-faction.

 

But anyhow, yes, the whole experience of flying and fighting in a certain environment is not fully simulated with a DCS module. But this is also not the point of this thread. Instead the focus is on some very specific issues of how the helo reacts in a specific environment. This thread is not about the preculiars of flying in moutainous environment, nor is it about the realism of a typical combat mission as whole.

 

In short, to some extend I follow our criticism, but it is completely misplaced ... in this thread, imo.

 

Btw, the DCS MI-8 is the basis of at least one professional simulator...

 

 

edit:

 

But the Polychop chopper only has an AFM, right? So am I correct in assuming that you can't really judge how comprehensive the EFM/PFM modules are, since you've never worked with the code on that level?

 

Not bashing, mind. Just wanted to point this out.

... and additionally @Dimitrov, you know how the DCS code works - but do you know how the code of these professional simulators work, i.e. have you seen it as well?

 

edit2:

and as I saw it only just now:

 

Well, not "arrogant" or something like this, but let me quote : "You know nothing John Snow" wink.gif

Well, and this is where you ARE arrogant ... because this statement is definately not true (for all participants in these threads).


Edited by Flagrum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First Poly annouced the Gazelle as AFM Model, some People dont want to read this it is like the old SU-25 you can not buy a AFM and expect the non Puls ultra PFM.

Another thing is there was serval People with Q&A to EC-135 and a real Gazelle Pilot wo found the FM quit nice, but after all the unhappy People hunt them down even spam them with PM.

Next one is Poly said again they check Fly behavor with pilot again, so i understand why is dimitriov so upset with notorious annoying People they know exact how the Gazelle to behave in the Air.

I am quite happy with current state of Gazelle.

 

 

Well, I'm a real world pilot too, and i don't think that it's nice in the way it is. You need to concider under which circumstances people are asked if it's a nice model.

 

Examples:

 

Does it generally fly like a real chopper?

My answear would be yes. If you pull collective, it climbs, if you apply left rudder, it's yawing to the left side and so on.

 

Is the flight model is accurate?

My answear would be yes and no. You loose height if you turn no matter the bank angle. You can't really stop a bank attitude once applied except you apply heavy amounts of counteracting force. Try a 360° pedal turn, in every real chopper (with T/R) you would need to counteract with cyclic (it a law of physics)...i don't have the feeling that general laws, which apply to every helicopter with a main- and a tailrotor count on the gazelle. And it's not a thing that can't be modeled, because these laws exist in the huey and the Mi-8.

 

If you ask me, if the gaz is too twitchy, my answear would be (conversly to some opinions here) hell no! That point is perfectly modeled i my opinion. I've flown the EC-120 which considering rotor system and tailrotor comes close to the gaz. You can fly this bird with two fingers a it really just needs tiny inputs. So job well done polychop!

 

Is it usable in tactical scenarios: Ohhh yeah! Finally we have a working RWR, a some sort of Flight Management System and so on...i love to jump in a commanders seat and do some recon stuff for others or lead a mission. The Gaz was a huge gamechanger in DCS (chopperwise) for me!

 

To sum it up: There are good and bad things about the gazelle. If you like a perfect 3d model with a lot of cool things inside the cockpit which are also fully simulated, than it's perfect!

 

Unfortunataly, me (and 5 guys from my real life squadron) don't like to fly the gaz anymore. For us, the gaz shows some no-go flight behavior which really pulls the fun factor of flying it down.

And now to the huey argument: Yes, in my opinion the huey has also some aspects which are not modeled to perfection. But in general it feels like a real helo.

 

Don't get my wrong. This is no polychop/gazelle bashing! I'm still a polychop supporter and will for sure buy the next helo-release! I just wanted to show, that there are a lot of real world helo pilots who are not satisfied with the current gazelle flight model version. They are just not active in the forum.

GeForce RTX 4090 Founders Edition - AMD Ryzen 7 5800X3D - 64Gb RAM - Win11 - HP Reverb G1 - Thrustmaster Warthog HOTAS (40cm extension) - VKB Sim T-Rudder MKIV Pedals

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

 

 

EFM : External flight model, system used by all 3rd parties, but as long as a 3rd party will code his fm himslef from scratch, EFM doesn't mean anything. Every 3rd party has his way of coding, it's not generic.

 

AFM and PFM, ED only, their way of coding, which doesn't mean more or less accurate, Professionnal flight model, it's marketing because they know you like that.

 

Every team has its way of coding, and there are lacks everywhere, including on the ka-50.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are no limits for 3rd party flight models. The EFM interface is a completely open door for any force or velocity vectors the dev wishes to inject into the sim. (Source: Zeus from RAZBAM)

 

Dimitriov, with all due respect, I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of DCS level flight and system models.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1774163&postcount=8

 

It doesn't take a real pilot, an engineer, or a genius to figure out how a helicopter should feel and behave. All of the information I have gathered (other simulators/modules, flight manuals, pilot reports, and general intuition on aerodynamics) agrees on how ANY helicopter should fly.

 

I'll keep this short and to the point, but the Gazelle doesn't fly like a helicopter. It is painfully obvious how the FM is coded, which is to say, greatly simplified. I'm sorry but a set of thrust vectors and angular accelerations isn't enough if you want to even remotely mimic the intricacies of a real helicopter's flight characteristics.

 

Forgive me if I offended anyone, but sometimes you have to look at things objectively.


Edited by Pocket Sized
  • Like 1

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

There are no limits for 3rd party flight models. The EFM interface is a completely open door for any force or velocity vectors the dev wishes to inject into the sim. (Source: Zeus from RAZBAM)

 

Dimitriov, with all due respect, I think you're vastly underestimating the complexity of DCS level flight and system models.

 

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=1774163&postcount=8

 

It doesn't take a real pilot, an engineer, or a genius to figure out how a helicopter should feel and behave. All of the information I have gathered (other simulators/modules, flight manuals, pilot reports, and general intuition on aerodynamics) agrees on how ANY helicopter should fly.

 

I'll keep this short and to the point, but the Gazelle doesn't fly like a helicopter. It is painfully obvious how the FM is coded, which is to say, greatly simplified. I'm sorry but a set of thrust vectors and angular accelerations isn't enough if you want to even remotely mimic the intricacies of a real helicopter's flight characteristics.

 

Forgive me if I offended anyone, but sometimes you have to look at things objectively.

 

So you know better that a ALAT SA-342M instructor pilot ? And you all the info you have gathered are better than informations directly coming from airbus or real classified manuals?

 

By the way if the stuff that is happening in mountains is not simulated by ED it can't be simulated by a third party.

 

Saying the FM is simplified is an insult to the Polychop team. I now clearly understand why they are not talking with the community anymore...

  • Like 1

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Understand my intervention here. I don't negate at all the lacks on any dcs FM. I'd just like people to see that they pilot a computer, not a helicopter.

 

You cannot ask 3rd parties to code in place of ED. That's as simple as this. If I came here and kicked asses a bit (happens rarely let's be honest), it's to make people realize their behavior : that's a game, with a plus plus level of accuracy, but still a game.

 

 

Can't believe what I'm reading here. Sorry, but you've made that (perfectly obvious) point rather clear five posts before (post 74), so what's the point of repeating it again and again? Besides to "come here and kick some ass" as you put it?

 

Especially as these generic statements are not contributing in any way to the issues some customers are raising regarding the FM behavior and controls, stemming from comparing those with what they've experienced with the other helicopter modules.

 

As one of the people who purchased this, I'm rather worried about some of these potential issues raised and even though I'm aware it's a computer game, I'd still like a DCS helicopter FM to adhere to some minimum standards set by other modules.

 

Perhaps ED should offer some core FM engine to validated 3rd parties to expand on to ensure some level of commonality (unless I misunderstood something and they already do)?

 

So you know better that a ALAT SA-342M instructor pilot?

 

It would be interesting to know if the pilot tried some other DCS helicopter modules to have some wider frame of reference of what can be expected from DCS modules and if so, how they compare in his opinion.


Edited by Dudikoff

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Took the liberty of shortening your comment in order to extract the salient points.

 

EFM: External flight model, system used by all 3rd parties... AFM and PFM, ED only, their way of coding... Professionnal flight model, it's marketing because they know you like that.

 

First, the external flight model (EFM) is not used by Polychop on the Gazelle (and thus, not by all 3rd parties as you claim). The description page for the chopper says that it uses an "AFM (Advanced Flight Model) that simulates all flight phases and characteristics of the Gazelle".

 

Second, your description of PFM as marketing only isn't true in the slightest. ED's own product term page says that "this is generations beyond an AFM/AFM+" and I'm certain they wouldn't say such a thing if it was untrue. So the the conclusion I'm arriving at here is that you either A) downplay the differences between the FM categories intentionally or B) don't know what you're talking about.

 

PS. Again, not bashing you at all. Just explaining how I see this.

The DCS Mi-8MTV2. The best aviational BBW experience you could ever dream of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you know better that a ALAT SA-342M instructor pilot ? And you all the info you have gathered are better than informations directly coming from airbus or real classified manuals?

 

By the way if the stuff that is happening in mountains is not simulated by ED it can't be simulated by a third party.

 

Saying the FM is simplified is an insult to the Polychop team. I now clearly understand why they are not talking with the community anymore...

 

No, I don't know better than an instructor. If you strapped me into a real Gazelle and told me to take her for a spin, I'd probably be pretty shaky.

 

I have no idea what you are referring to about the mountain flying, but that's a topic for another day.

 

In case you didn't read my link, all other DCS modules simulate rotor physics by calculating the aerodynamic and inertial properties of each section of every rotor blade as they spin. The Gazelle feels and acts as if the rotor is just a thrust vector, the magnitude of which is proportional to collective position and RPM.

 

Why do I think this?

 

No translational lift (except for that generated by the fuselage and tail).

No vortex ring state.

Cyclic inputs produce angular acceleration as opposed to angular rate, which is nonsense especially in a helo equipped with SAS.

 

The problem isn't that the helicopter feels different from other simulations, the way it flies doesn't make any sense. The FM doesn't need to be tweaked, it needs to be completely redesigned from the ground up to simulate the effects of a three bladed rotor spinning on top of the airframe.

 

I absolutely hate talking about another person's hard work like this, but there comes a point at which there is no advantage to being subtle.

  • Like 2

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

The Gazelle feels and acts as if the rotor is just a thrust vector, the magnitude of which is proportional to collective position and RPM.

 

How do you know this ? Did a dev tell it to you ? Is it only speculation ?

I really would like to see a source on that.

 

No vortex ring state.

 

I can vortex anytime in the gazelle since it came out : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPBxrqX-NZI

 

Get your facts strait.


Edited by myHelljumper

Helljumper - M2000C Guru

 

Helljumper's Youtube

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCK3rTjezLUxPbWHvJJ3W2fA

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...